Hi Jay
In short, yes. Unfortunately the design guidelines have been a little vague on some of the entity[Spec] level fields up until now and this is probably why different API leads from different operators/vendors have used a different naming convention. Newer APIs are more consistent as they are deriving from the entity schemas. A new version (Part 7) of the V5 design guidelines (TMF763) is soon to be published which should address these inconsistencies from now on.
Hope this help.
------------------------------
Dan d'Albuquerque
Entronica Company Limited
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Jan 24, 2025 13:45
From: Jay Hamilton
Subject: Would it be preferable to have consistency in the vocabulary used for lifecycle status?
Would it be preferable to have consistency in the following property names?
TMF 620 Product Catalog
lifecycleStatus: A String. Used to indicate the current lifecycle status.
TMF 632 Party Management
status: An IndividualStateType. Valid values for the lifecycle state of the individual.
------------------------------
Jay Hamilton
AT&T Inc.
------------------------------