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.

Note: the decision making body is the Registry CCB.

Current Service Registry

See: https://reference.swim.aero/registries.html
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

Discussion

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.
There is a large degree of freedom when describing services. Harmonisation of entries through codelists may be good.

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).

Quality of Content

Compare further service descriptions from the MET community, identify similar services (HTTP, AMPQ) and evaluate commonalities/differences