Services schema

[kynan]

A service currently has the following schema:

service_schema = {
    'name': {
        'type': 'string',
        'required': True,
    },
    'fields': {
        'type': 'dict',
        'required': True,
    },
    'unique': {
        'type': 'boolean',
        'default': False,
    },
    'description': {
        'type': 'string',
    },
    'group': {
        'type': 'string',
    },
    'keywords': {
        'type': 'list',
        'schema': {
            'type': 'string',
        },
    },
    'protocol_type': {
        'type': 'string',
    },
    'service_name': {
        'type': 'string',
        'required': True,
    },
    'service_code': {
        'type': 'string',
        'required': True,
        'unique': True,
    },
}

This schema is interpreted as follows:

• name: human readable name, may be any string
• fields: defines the schema of the service where each field must have a valid Eve schema
• unique: must documents of a given service be unique?
• description: human readable description, any string
• group: What do we want this to be?
• keywords: list of keywords characterizing the service
• protocol_type: Still needed?
• service_name: name used for the endpoint and the collection where documents for this service are stored
• service_code: unique code used to identify the schema for a document

Is this schema still appropriate? I think we need to at least:

• define what protocol_type is supposed to be or drop it
• define what group is supposed to be or drop it

[nicowe]

The service descriptions chosen to match http://wiki.open311.org/GeoReport_v2.
This is an open standard about geo reporting. It would be nice to conform to this.

[kynan]

Ok, I hadn't realised it was modelled on that standard. Yes, it definitely make sense to conform to that.

[nicowe]

Yes I did not mention that anywhere.

[kynan]

So presumably we should then also implement Open311 service discovery

[nicowe]

I think so.