| | |
|---|
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 | | 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 |