Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM

[jessie jewitt]

Hi Xu-
   Maybe we can discuss this next week. Our feedback is our recommendation
on what we would like to see done. You and others may not agree, in which
case perhaps we need to have a poll. I didn't see any other comments.
-Jessie

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, yangxu (H)  wrote:

> 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),onap-discuss@lists.onap.org,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
>    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
>  . 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
> lifecycle
> state machine
> 
>   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".
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:38 PM, yangxu (H)  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 

Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM

[yangxu (H)]

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),onap-discuss@lists.onap.org,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   
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 . 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 
 
lifecycle state 
machine
  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) 
mailto:yang...@huawei.com>> 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 

Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM

[jessie jewitt]

 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
   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
 . 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
lifecycle
state machine

 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".


On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:38 PM, yangxu (H)  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:* onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-discuss-bounces@
> lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *jessie jewitt
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:05 AM
> *To:* denghui (L) 
> *Cc:* onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
> *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)  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 

Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM

[yangxu (H)]

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: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of jessie jewitt
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:05 AM
To: denghui (L) 
Cc: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
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) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> 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
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM

[jessie jewitt]

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)  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
> onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
>
>
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

[onap-discuss] [modeling] Call for approval on the “obsolete legacy attributes/datatypes” proposal for the resource IM

[denghui (L)]

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
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss