Service Naming

Summary

“The Cross Initiative Scenarios TN identified a high degree of alignment of Service Taxonomies across the initiatives. Alignment of service type names will enable higher reuse of services across initiatives.”

Classification

Category Cross-Initiative Scenario
Identifier ISSUE-CIS-002
Type of recommended activity Further Investigation about the subject.
Organisations addressed Possible future involvement of working groups of INSPIRE, GEOSS and GMES

Additional information

Context Different development environments name services in differently, resulting in the same service type having different names in each of the initiatives.
Rationale Differences of service types impede rapid use of services across initiatives. Specific examples of differences include:
  • Registry and Discovery vs. Catalog/Registry Service
  • "Invoke SD Services" vs. Service Chaining and Workflow
  • Only GEOSS has sensor web services.
  • Only GEOSS is addressing Event Handling
Dependencies
Further background information
  • Technology Watch Report - Cross-Initiative Scenario [PDF]
  • Comparative analysis report (version 2) [PDF]
  • Comparative Analysis Report (version 2) - Annex Recommendations [PDF]
Main discussion points
Roadmap Continue to consider service naming developed by international standards bodies.

Service Taxonomies are e.g. not yet defined for SAFER and G-MOSAIC. Definition of service types for SAFER and G-MOSAIC could use the existing INPSIRE, GEOSS and GEOLAND taxonomies.
 

[Logo] FP7GIGAS is a Support Action partly funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission. The project runs from June 2008 to May 2010.