...
| draw.io Diagram | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
You could put the 'ResponsibleManagerReference' as attribute(s) of the Resource, but I think it is (1) a type of resource in its own right and (2) potentially structured information required to interface with the actual manager instance.
Intent, plans and services
The separation of concerns (services and resources) is a principle that should be enshrined in the topology model.
By its nature a service is a simplified abstraction of what is used to realize it. The implementation details typically do not matter to a customer as long as the SLA is met. Bundling the service concepts into a resource model is going to make life more complex. Where there are service specific modeling needs, lets add them to the CFS/RFS classes.
Planning can be covered by a separate instance of the model – different type of separation. Application logic is responsible for the state transition (and the update of plan and actual topology models)
Intent is a wonderful new buzzword. It is only as good as the interpreter is. Eventually the intent needs to be translated into configuration of endpoints, connectivity and flow domains. Intent is also hierarchical, it will be evolved by layers of interpreters. Of course we need to keep the reference back to the intent for traceability (and possibly in scheduling). This can be achieved by having a simple hierarchical element that is referenced by the 'Resource'. So the participation of any resource in an 'intent' can be traced and interrogated regardless of the interpreter.
| draw.io Diagram | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Specific named classes
ManagedFunction
...