Task Status
This page is part of the ongoing SWIM communities of interest discussions. The content is working material. It should not be treated as final as it is still subject to review, comment and change.
This page captures discussion of the European Service Registry and the registry concept.
Current Service Registry
Discussion
At SSCONE level
- There is a large degree of freedom when describing services. Harmonisation of entries through codelists may be good.
- See New: Best practices to harmonise content of service description fields for work on this area.
- Compare further service descriptions from the MET community, identify similar services (HTTP, AMPQ) and evaluate commonalities/differences
Handed to Registry CCB
Service Registry Concepts
need some vision paper in the area dealing with e.g.
federated and interconnected registries should be put in place - registry hierarchy
- runtime v design time registry
criteria 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
The following terms are used here but have not been clarified:
- federated. Some work on what this means is needed
Service Registry Improvements
The responsiveness of the Registry can be improved. Sometime there is a delay when you click the ‘edit’ button.
Technology
- What will be the technology to enable such a vision? Probably not all registry products are interoperable.
- Interaction with OGC's service discovery service (https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=94391)