Open APIs

 View Only
  • 1.  TMF632 Status

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 29 days ago
    Hi all, is there any plan to expand the lists of statuses? At present, there's only Initialised, Validated and Deceased. I'd quite like to add one or two.
    For starters, 'Merged' where we've started with the creation of 2 Individuals taken from legacy systems and merged them to create one master. One record will remain current and the other will need to be retained but not used.

    Thanks in advance, Jeff


    ------------------------------
    Jeff BARKER
    BT Group plc
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF632 Status

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 28 days ago
    Hi Jeff

    You can of course add statuses in your extension of the API implementation.
    I now "own" this API for the purposes of upgrading it to v5, and we can consider adding additional statuses, but this needs to be done carefully, since each telco might have a different list of statuses.
    I don't think Merged is a good status, certainly not for the current record, but perhaps for the obsolete record. You would presumably need a reference (relatedParty) from the current record to the obsolete record.
    I'd be interested in getting a list of statuses for Organization - Deceased is not relevant, but perhaps Dissolved or OutOfBusiness or similar?

    ------------------------------
    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.
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: TMF632 Status

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 27 days ago
    Hi Jonathan, that's good that TMF632 has an owner :)

    Yes, the 'merged' status would be for the redundant record. It's there to show that the record is obsolete and that it's been merged with the current record. I would have thought that this might become quite a common requirement since there are many reasons that a business might have multiple records for the same customer it makes sense to merge. We're not planning any other statuses and nothing for the 'current' record.
    I'll have a bit of a think and canvas some stakeholders on the status of the Organisation. I've not come across any requirements of this nature yet but I'll keep you posted.

    Are you also the owner for TMF672 and TMF669 by the way? We've implemented a very small number of extensions for these and it would make sense to feedback before v5.

    Many thanks, Jeff

    ------------------------------
    Jeff BARKER
    BT Group plc
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: TMF632 Status

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 26 days ago
    Thanks for the clarification
    I am indeed the owner of TMF672 (roles and permissions) for v5, but that has lowish priority, and I just took on TMF669 (Party Role) for the v5 uplift.
    So would be interested to hear what extensions you have made.

    ------------------------------
    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.
    ------------------------------