Open APIs

There is a relationshipType field that describes a relationship between product or productOrderItems (TMF 622).
Presumably this isn't a free form string but I can't find an enum that clearly states the valid values for a relationship type.

Does that exist anywhere? 

In TMF 622 there is a typo - either in the text found on the productRelationship schema (yaml) that shows "bundled" (with a d) or in the user guide on page 45 (sample payload) that shows "bundles" (with an s)

Additionally the productOrderItemRelationship schema describes a subset of options the productRelationship shows.

The product relationship schema has the most detailed description below:

"Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful"

but are these values captured in an enum somewhere? And are the productOrderItem values the same or only the first two?

pointers are appreciated!

Lynn

------------------------------
Lynn Dueck
Oracle Corporation
------------------------------

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------

The TMF622 spec seems to say there are four relationship types:

• bundled
• reliesOn
• targets
• isTargeted

"string. Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful."

The text begins "such as", but the rest of the phrasing is very emphatic that it is classifying relationships into one of these four types.
If the intent is that relationship types are open then this part of the spec needs to be re-written to make that clear, the current spec reads as constrained to the four values.

Alasdair


------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: May 02, 2021 07:35
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Relationship type

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------

Hello,

Alasdair, these four values are provided as examples but not normative. As stated by Jonathan we do not provide a close list in this API. This could be complicated from my perspective to provide it because depending on your catalog & CPQ  applications. Perhaps we need to state this clearly in the user guide for the relationshipType attribute.

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:22
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

The TMF622 spec seems to say there are four relationship types:

• bundled
• reliesOn
• targets
• isTargeted

"string. Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful."

The text begins "such as", but the rest of the phrasing is very emphatic that it is classifying relationships into one of these four types.
If the intent is that relationship types are open then this part of the spec needs to be re-written to make that clear, the current spec reads as constrained to the four values.

Alasdair


------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: May 02, 2021 07:35
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Relationship type

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.

Ludovic,

An update to the user guide would be good - many people have come to the conclusion the spec is constraining type to those four values.
Very glad to here that is not the case.

Thanks to @Lynn Dueck for questioning this (and kicking myself a bit for not querying - but the spec seemed quite definitive).

Is it a safe rule of thumb that if the OpenAPI schemas show an unconstrained string then the spec intends an open value?

Alasdair

------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:39
From: Ludovic Robert
Subject: Relationship type

Hello,

Alasdair, these four values are provided as examples but not normative. As stated by Jonathan we do not provide a close list in this API. This could be complicated from my perspective to provide it because depending on your catalog & CPQ  applications. Perhaps we need to state this clearly in the user guide for the relationshipType attribute.

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:22
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

The TMF622 spec seems to say there are four relationship types:

• bundled
• reliesOn
• targets
• isTargeted

"string. Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful."

The text begins "such as", but the rest of the phrasing is very emphatic that it is classifying relationships into one of these four types.
If the intent is that relationship types are open then this part of the spec needs to be re-written to make that clear, the current spec reads as constrained to the four values.

Alasdair


------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc


Original Message:
Sent: May 02, 2021 07:35
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Relationship type

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.

Alasdair,

We'll perhaps find exception but yes I share this 'rule'. 

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:49
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

Ludovic,

An update to the user guide would be good - many people have come to the conclusion the spec is constraining type to those four values.
Very glad to here that is not the case.

Thanks to @Lynn Dueck for questioning this (and kicking myself a bit for not querying - but the spec seemed quite definitive).

Is it a safe rule of thumb that if the OpenAPI schemas show an unconstrained string then the spec intends an open value?

Alasdair

------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:39
From: Ludovic Robert
Subject: Relationship type

Hello,

Alasdair, these four values are provided as examples but not normative. As stated by Jonathan we do not provide a close list in this API. This could be complicated from my perspective to provide it because depending on your catalog & CPQ  applications. Perhaps we need to state this clearly in the user guide for the relationshipType attribute.

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:22
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

The TMF622 spec seems to say there are four relationship types:

• bundled
• reliesOn
• targets
• isTargeted

"string. Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful."

The text begins "such as", but the rest of the phrasing is very emphatic that it is classifying relationships into one of these four types.
If the intent is that relationship types are open then this part of the spec needs to be re-written to make that clear, the current spec reads as constrained to the four values.

Alasdair


------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc


Original Message:
Sent: May 02, 2021 07:35
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Relationship type

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.

Thanks.

------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 13:16
From: Ludovic Robert
Subject: Relationship type

Alasdair,

We'll perhaps find exception but yes I share this 'rule'.

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:49
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

Ludovic,

An update to the user guide would be good - many people have come to the conclusion the spec is constraining type to those four values.
Very glad to here that is not the case.

Thanks to @Lynn Dueck for questioning this (and kicking myself a bit for not querying - but the spec seemed quite definitive).

Is it a safe rule of thumb that if the OpenAPI schemas show an unconstrained string then the spec intends an open value?

Alasdair

------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:39
From: Ludovic Robert
Subject: Relationship type

Hello,

Alasdair, these four values are provided as examples but not normative. As stated by Jonathan we do not provide a close list in this API. This could be complicated from my perspective to provide it because depending on your catalog & CPQ  applications. Perhaps we need to state this clearly in the user guide for the relationshipType attribute.

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:22
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

The TMF622 spec seems to say there are four relationship types:

• bundled
• reliesOn
• targets
• isTargeted

"string. Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful."

The text begins "such as", but the rest of the phrasing is very emphatic that it is classifying relationships into one of these four types.
If the intent is that relationship types are open then this part of the spec needs to be re-written to make that clear, the current spec reads as constrained to the four values.

Alasdair


------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc


Original Message:
Sent: May 02, 2021 07:35
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Relationship type

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.

@Stephen Harrop @Kamal Maghsoudlou As discussed in yesterday's governance call, TMF622 relationshipTypes are open to implementations and need not to be "bundles" and "reliesOn" as mentioned in the samples of V5 spec document. 

Cc: @Abhi Sur @Siddhesh Pankar @Rohit Kumar Rathi

------------------------------
Lakshmi Mallidi
Salesforce
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:49
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

Ludovic,

An update to the user guide would be good - many people have come to the conclusion the spec is constraining type to those four values.
Very glad to here that is not the case.

Thanks to @Lynn Dueck for questioning this (and kicking myself a bit for not querying - but the spec seemed quite definitive).

Is it a safe rule of thumb that if the OpenAPI schemas show an unconstrained string then the spec intends an open value?

Alasdair

------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:39
From: Ludovic Robert
Subject: Relationship type

Hello,

Alasdair, these four values are provided as examples but not normative. As stated by Jonathan we do not provide a close list in this API. This could be complicated from my perspective to provide it because depending on your catalog & CPQ  applications. Perhaps we need to state this clearly in the user guide for the relationshipType attribute.

Ludovic

------------------------------
Ludovic Robert
Orange
My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF


Original Message:
Sent: May 18, 2021 12:22
From: Alasdair MacLeod
Subject: Relationship type

The TMF622 spec seems to say there are four relationship types:

• bundled
• reliesOn
• targets
• isTargeted

"string. Type of the product relationship, such as [bundled] if the product is a bundle and you want to describe the bundled products inside this bundle; [reliesOn] if the product needs another already owned product to rely on (e.g. an option on an already owned mobile access product) [targets] or [isTargeted] (depending on the way of expressing the link) for any other kind of links that may be useful."

The text begins "such as", but the rest of the phrasing is very emphatic that it is classifying relationships into one of these four types.
If the intent is that relationship types are open then this part of the spec needs to be re-written to make that clear, the current spec reads as constrained to the four values.

Alasdair


------------------------------
Alasdair MacLeod
BT Group plc


Original Message:
Sent: May 02, 2021 07:35
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: Relationship type

Hi Lynn
Currently, to the best of my knowledge there is not a closed list of relationship types, for any of the <entity>relationship classes in the Open API resource model.
This is true in general for many of the data items that seemingly have a closed list, perhaps due to the difficulty in reaching consensus on the valid value list.

Lifecycle status is one of the places where we have fully closed and typed lists of valid values.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.