Open APIs

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,

Hi Opher, I totally agree with you.

And I enriched the JIRA ticket I initiated, to be able to trace this type of catalogue relationship at inventory level. 

Thank you

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,

hey,

If I understand the SID correctly:

1. CFSSpec (know-how) requires at least one RFSSpec (technical solution)
2. and of course the RFSSpec requires at least one RSpec

so you have an (indirect) relationship between CFSSpec and RSpec.

can you share your example of a CFSSpec that requires a RSpec without a RFSSpec "in the middle"?

Since you posted in the API community, do you want to see that CFSSpec -> RSpec relationship in the service catalogue API?

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,

Hi Matthieu, you can have a look to the ODA use case TMFS008, especially the Service and Resource Catalog view : we described the example of a Mobile Line CFSspec, with its 4G and 5G RFSspec, plus a pre-requisite link to a SIM Card or an eSIM profile resource.

We express here that the SIM card is a functional pre-requisite to the Mobile Line. It is not part of the Mobile Line RFSspec, as it constitutes a dedicated product, that can be ordered or changed by the customer without asking a change at the Mobile Line product itself.

So if we add this relationship in the SID model, we will also need to be able to have it in the related API.

Hope it clarifies.

hey,

If I understand the SID correctly:

1. CFSSpec (know-how) requires at least one RFSSpec (technical solution)
2. and of course the RFSSpec requires at least one RSpec

so you have an (indirect) relationship between CFSSpec and RSpec.

can you share your example of a CFSSpec that requires a RSpec without a RFSSpec "in the middle"?

Since you posted in the API community, do you want to see that CFSSpec -> RSpec relationship in the service catalogue API?

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,

hey,

If I understand the SID correctly:

1. CFSSpec (know-how) requires at least one RFSSpec (technical solution)
2. and of course the RFSSpec requires at least one RSpec

so you have an (indirect) relationship between CFSSpec and RSpec.

can you share your example of a CFSSpec that requires a RSpec without a RFSSpec "in the middle"?

Since you posted in the API community, do you want to see that CFSSpec -> RSpec relationship in the service catalogue API?

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,

My recollection is that CFSS can alternatively  point to Resource Factions. this was introduced to support logical resources as seen in Virtualisation such as NFV.   This is described in GB922 Resource v23.0.0 – TM Forum

I would need to look at the SID model to check the cardinality of the link between CFSS and RFSS so won't comment on that until I have checked

I do recall in teh SID Configuration ABE a suggestion that RFS should be replaced by confiuration adn profiles but this proposal has not been actioned as ther are legacy case wher RFS are the most suitable form of models

hey,

If I understand the SID correctly:

1. CFSSpec (know-how) requires at least one RFSSpec (technical solution)
2. and of course the RFSSpec requires at least one RSpec

so you have an (indirect) relationship between CFSSpec and RSpec.

can you share your example of a CFSSpec that requires a RSpec without a RFSSpec "in the middle"?

Since you posted in the API community, do you want to see that CFSSpec -> RSpec relationship in the service catalogue API?

Hello experts,

In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA

However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.

The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."

I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.

Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?

Best regards,