•Compare further service descriptions from the MET community, identify similar services (HTTP, AMPQ) and evaluate commonalities/differences| Insert excerpt |
|---|
| Task Status |
|---|
| Task Status |
|---|
| nopanel | true |
|---|
|
| Excerpt |
|---|
This page captures discussion of the European Service Registry and the registry concept. |
toc| title | from retrospecitves - to be edited |
|---|
|
•federated and interconnected registries should be put in place
•need some vision paper in the area dealing e.g. with registry hierarchy
•The responsiveness of the Registry can be improved. Sometime there is a delay when you click the ‘edit’ button.
•There is a large degree of freedom when describing services. Harmonisation of entries through codelists may be good.
•criterion to determine if a service is to be published in a European, national or local registry
•service discovery should be a feature, but it is really unclear to have concrete use cases in our operational ATM /AIM / ATFCM where we can demonstrate the need for service discovery
•What will be the technology to enable such a vision? Probably not all registry products are interoperable.
Note: the decision making body is the Registry CCB. |
|
| Info |
|---|
From Common Project 1: the registry, which must be used for publishing information about services, including service definitions that describe those aspects of a service that should be common among all implementations, such as standardised service specifications and implementation descriptions for providers |
Service Registry
Discussion
At the moment there are no outstanding discussion points.