Page Comparison

Tom

• WIS 2 Node as part of the WMO infrastructure/network, which is confusing with “wis2node” in the software project

• Software Project: wis2node, also being marketed as “WIS 2.0 in a box”

• Software Project: an initial release/MVP (0.5.0) targeting on 11 February, 2022

• Software Project to be renamed from “wis2node” to “wis2box”

7 Feb

Rémy

• it is important to have a clear difference between the names of the reference implementation and a generic name for site being part of WIS2.

• For the former, wis2box or wis2 in a box are fine with me. I have a slight preference for WIS2 in a box, as being more catchy (IMHO).

• For the latter, at the moment for WIS, we have a generic name of "WIS Center". So, we could use "WIS2 center" and avoid WIS2 Node or something like that.

8 Feb

Jeremy

• At the moment for WIS, we have a generic name of "WIS Center", which includes NC, DCPC, and GISC.

• I thought that the term “WIS2 node” implied NC or DCPC?

8 Feb

Enrico

• WIS2 in a box can stay as project name and brand, while the GitHub repo can be wis2box. 

• WIS2 node is short for NC, DCPC, not GISC.

• We should clarify the narrative to be sure that communication works. This is what I propose.

• NCs, DCPCs will not lose their role as such in the migration, they will be migrated to WIS2 when they implement a WIS2 node. What this means will be specified in the WIS2 tech regs and a reference implementation will be given (WIS2 in a box) to facilitate the migration. 

8 Feb

Hassan

• WIS2 node can be confused with WIS center, I prefer WIS2 in a Box.

• WIS2 node is important to focus project development teams but not to communicate with users.

8 Feb

Peter

• wis2 Basic Observation eXchange... wis2BOX

8 Feb

Thorsten

• Good naming is very important.

• Propose the WIS(2) Common Infrastructure, WCI or WIS2CI for short, minimum for the broker system

• I find Basic Observation eXchange difficult, because we are not only talking about observation.

9 Feb