| Task | Notes |
|---|
Artefacts to describe services
|
| Service Definitions supporting material | |
| Service Descriptions supporting material | - Comments to be resolved (send suggestions to the group):
- SWIM-SERV-240 Service interfaces - If the fully qualified network addressis not provided for e.g. security reasons, what text should be used?
- There is now a need to clarify if the use case for hiding the endpoint is still valid given the existence of authenticated users in the registry.
|
| Support |
| The interoperability goal | - Good documentation on the need for interoperability is needed. What should we do? There is good high-level material at: https://reference.swim.aero/what-is-swim.html?
- From SSCONE-SITCOM
- Adoption of services is seen as the key - they should cover
- Reuse of standards including service definitions is fundamental
- they cover aspects of organisational and technical interoperability
Reuse of standards including service definitions is fundamental- they contribute to interoperability based on the concreteness of the requirements they contain, including requirements on the data.
- We should check if the Registry has a "flag" for conformance checking based on req-120.
- Example from maritime world: A flag in the service registry that conformance checks with standard have been done. Manual check, but attempt to also (difficult) automate it e.g. check WFS operations re actually implemented.
- However, interoperability goes beyond conformance with the standards - this final step is beyond the scope of SSCONE-SITCOM.
- an authority could check the conformance statements: EASA or national regulatory authority or another body.
|
| FAQ | - Questions to be answered (send suggestions to the group):
- How do I describe a service that uses GraphQL?
|
| SWIM service ecosystem |
| Standardised Implementations | |
| Service Categories - Service Type | - Dedicated meetings took place for this and the end result is now available. It is maturing but it is accepted that new values will be added as service implementation continues. Therefore, do not publish on the reference website yet. More meetings focusing on FF-ICE services and AMQP are needed.
|
| Service Portfolio and Service Categories - Service Type | |
| Registry changes | - The registry CCB was asked if it is possible to have authenticated and non-authenticated users. That would allow certain fields to be only seen by authenticated users.
- Response: This is, in fact, the case already. It is possible to toggle the visibility of fields using the HTML based editor. This is often missed. Better documentation has been requested.
- Non-authenticated users could see something like the /wiki/spaces/BOK/pages/59409601 fields only.
- Response: The list of fields that can be toggled will be added to the documentation.
- Note: This does not help when the service provider wants to hide the endpoint from everyone including authenticated users.
|