Hi Jessie, My view for the comment: The proposal is to mark some attributes/datatypes, for the readers of the spec to know they are recommended not to use these attributes/datatypes any more and these items are to be removed in the future releases. It's not about setting up a whole lifecycle of the model or to use a particular term to represent this intention. So I suggest we seperate the two things. What we need to decide is whether we accept the intention and find a proper way to mark it. It's suggested to adopt IISOMI definitions to represent the intention for the sake of convenience. But I'm not convinced we should adopt the whole IISOMI guidelines to use its terms. If the comment is that we couldn't use IISOMI term without first accepting the related definitions, maybe we could use other term or have our own definition to ease the discussion. If the comment is that we need to first mark these items as "deprecate" before "obsolete" as IISOMI suggest, (i.e. object directly remove items in the next release)I would suggest you to discuss with Alex whether he (and other interested people)could accept it. Anyway, I encourage the proposer to discuss with Jessie to address her comments. Or we need to discuss it the next week.
Best regards, Xu Yang 发件人：jessie jewitt 收件人：yangxu (H), 抄 送：denghui (L),[email protected],onap-tsc, 时间：2018-06-16 02:03:57 主 题：Re: [onap-discuss][modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM Here is our (ARM/OAM Technologies) feedback on this proposal: 1. Format - We're glad to see that ONAP is using the "Applied Stereotypes" column in their tables, even though this is only defined in IFA015 output and not IFA011. However, since you are choosing to use it, we'd like to recommend that it be used properly. The column is intended to show the applied stereotypes that they use in Papyrus, which are based on the IISOMI Open Model Profile. See Stereotype Usage<https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Stereotypes> for an explanation of how these stereotypes are used. "Obsolete" is a stereotype itself and not a valid enum for "support". The proper format per IISOMI would be: OpenModelAttribute (this is the applied stereotype) isInvariant: false support: MANDATORY Obsolete (this is the applied stereotype, note there is no "d" on the end) 2. Artifact lifecycle: The proposal to put an artifact in an "Obsolete" lifecycle state implies that we have agreed to implement artifact lifecycles in accordance with the IISOMI Guidelines<https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=20874416> . As far as we know, this is under discussion, but has not been accepted by the team. It seems a bit pre-mature, therefore, to jump straight to a proposal where we implement the "Obsolete" stereotype without having first accepted general use of the the lifecycle stereotypes. 3. Recommendation for moving forward on this proposal: a. Implementing an artifact lifecycle, per this proposal, implies "agreement" that we will use artifact lifecycles in the model. If people agree to this proposal, then we have implicit agreement on using lifecycle stereotypes. No need for discussion. If this is not the case, then we need to discuss and agree on usage of the lifecycle stereotypes before marking any artifact as "Obsolete". b. Assuming it is agreed to use lifecycle stereotypes, all artifacts in the model should have a lifecycle phase associated to them, and not just the proposed "Obsolete" lifecycle. c. The proposal to go from "nothing" to "Obsolete" is not in accordance with the <https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Stereotypes#Stereotypes-LifecycleStereotypes> lifecycle state machine<https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Stereotypes#Stereotypes-LifecycleStereotypes> that proposes an artifact go from "Mature"-> "Deprecated"-> "Obsolete". Assuming, had we implemented lifecycles, and that these attributes would be in a "Mature" phase, the next logical step would be then to transition them to "Deprecated" and not "Obsolete", as proposed. We are not in agreement that they directly be marked as "Obsolete". [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:38 PM, yangxu (H) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Jessie, Maybe I can help clarify this. Per the discussion of the resource IM interest group, the “obsolete” is intended to follow the definitions of the IISOMI modeling guidelines as you stated below for the time being. I think the intention of the proposal is to mark those attributes/datatypes as “obsolete” but not removed for R3, and perhaps remove them in R4, which fits the definition. Alex, you can confirm whether I interpreted it correctly. For others who haven’t attend the resource IM call, please noted that the “lifecycle” stereotype of the model is still under discussion. The interest group just agrees that the IISOMI definition of “obsolete” fits the current intention of the proposal and decides to use the term. BR, Xu From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of jessie jewitt Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:05 AM To: denghui (L) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; onap-tsc <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM Hello Deng Hui- Could you please clarify something for me. The ETSI "applied stereotype", on which this column in the wiki table is based, has "obsolete" as an artifact lifecycle option, with its definition supplied in the IISOMI Modeling Guidelines. This is the definition of "obsolete" in those guidelines. Is this what we should interpret this to mean? Will the entity be kept in the model for at least one further release? Thanks for your guidance, Jessie • Obsolete This stereotype indicates that the entity should not be used in new implementation and that attempts should be made to remove it from existing implementation. The entity should be kept in the model for at least one further release. The team has to decide on a case by case basis when to remove it from the model. On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:23 AM, denghui (L) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello all, This is 1 week’s call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM. The intention is to mark several attributes/datatypes of the current model as “obsoleted” as their functionalities are covered by some other attributes. Detailed information of the proposal can be found at: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Obsolete+Legacy+Attributes , the proposed changes are marked in red. Thanks a lot for your review Best regards, DENG Hui _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
