[OASIS Issue Tracker] Created: (ENERGYINTEROP-73) 717 - Generalthought. Did you have a standard naming convention for the service names.?

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

717 - General thought. Did you have a standard naming convention for the service names.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: ENERGYINTEROP-73
                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ENERGYINTEROP-73
             Project: OASIS Energy Interoperation TC
          Issue Type: Improvement
          Components: spec
    Affects Versions: wd12
         Environment: SGIP-PAP09 Gerry Gray
            Reporter: Toby Considine
            Assignee: Toby Considine


Some examples at the end of previous section. Looking at the service names - found in service def team and why we created a naming convention. In a NS expectation on what developers will see. And if extend the work done, create a framework in which they can add to an additional version. Not saying right/wrong - use CIM as model for the verbs. Like Create, Created, Send, Receive, Execute, and info object in response to a request. The other way - some names imply ESB which may not be applicable. For example, another way to do service name is follow the information name being used. Say DR event, inside a svc have operations and operation names. Initiate, cancel, modify inside the service names. Pattern for how design the WSDLs down the road. Use of verb "Modify" and "Update" - those two words are synonymous. Probably need consistent .

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira