Open APIs

 View Only
  • 1.  TMF639 Resource to Service Relationships

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 28, 2024 04:33

    Hi Community, 

    Just looking to see if there is a way to support Resource to Service relationships in TMF639 as the API doesn't support resource.supportingService[] due to the nature of the SID.

    We need to perform a device swapout to support a capacity upgrade.  All impacts services on the NTU need to be determined.  The NTU would have multiple UNI Ports available that are allocated to unique customers, each UNI Port could support multiple services.  As part of the planning we need to determine the impacted services, ideally from the primary source being inventory. This means a 639 GET on a UNI Port to get the serviceRelationships per service that is allocated to it.

    Was originally considering a polymorphic extension of some sort as below, but don't think serviceRelationship is a base class. Perhaps an extension of resource class itself.. 

    Interested to hear thoughts.

    "resourceRelationship": [
        {
          "relationshipType": "assignedTo",
          "service": {
            "id": "15cf83e8-f699-4064-9da7-4140aa4f2d46",
            "href": "activationAndConfiguration/v4/service/broadband/15cf83e8-f699-4064-9da7-4140aa4f2d46"
          }
          "@baseType": "resourceRelationship",
          "@type": "serviceRelationship",
      "@schemaLocation": "https://.../TMF639-ResourceInventory-v4.0.0.swagger_extended.json#/definitions/serviceRelationship"
        }
      ],  

    Thanks for your help.



    ------------------------------
    Pushan Mukerjee
    Telstra Corporation
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF639 Resource to Service Relationships

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 29, 2024 23:52

    @Pushan Mukerjee asks about a Resource -> Service relationship.  There is an intention to avoid circular references in the Open API specifications. In implementations such a link is often needed, so yes, you should add it through polymorphism.  You shouldn't use resourceRelationship however as those should all be related Resources (not Service). 

    This is that association in SID:

    ResourceRelationship <<TMF_BusinessEntity>>
    A migration, substitution, dependency, or exclusivity relationship between/among Resources.



    ------------------------------
    Vance Shipley
    SigScale
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: TMF639 Resource to Service Relationships

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 30, 2024 02:42
    Edited by Pushan Mukerjee Aug 30, 2024 02:47

    Thanks a lot Vance, 

    There doesn't seem to be even a relatedEntity in the 639 spec. Otherwise at minimum we could do something like this:

    ⁠"relatedEntity": [
        {
            "service": {
            "id": "15cf83e8-f699-4064-9da7-4140aa4f2d46",
            "href": "activationAndConfiguration/v4/service/broadband/15cf83e8-f699-4064-9da7-4140aa4f2d46"
          }
          "@baseType": "relatedEntity",
          "@type": "service",
       "@schemaLocation": "https://.../TMF638-ServiceInventory-v4.0.0.swagger_extended.json#/definitions/service"
        }
      ]   

    Also, another problem is there is no relationshipType in relatedEntity to qualify how the resource is related. 



    ------------------------------
    Pushan Mukerjee
    Telstra Corporation
    ------------------------------