Structure and cleanup #258
Conversation
|
I think this PR should point to dev and not master? |
|
Ah, yes. Changed, thanks! |
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| This could also extend to product level metadata: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is it 'product' level? Overall, the following example seems confusing and outdated... bands vs eo:bands, other eo fields etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't get a chance to look in depth at everything that was in this document. It's in the repo now, so was just trying to make it a bit better. If there's not time to really go over it then we can just remove it. Best thing to do might be to move this particular discussion to an issue, since there's not really a great 'recommendation' there. I just wanted to make sure this bit wasn't lost, as it captured some of the previous ideas / options.
| @@ -61,7 +142,7 @@ of canonical product definitions online, that all static catalogs using a partic | |||
| able to reference. | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| ## Product | |||
| ### Product | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Products are outdated => Dataset
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well I think product was more just supposed to capture the asset level metadata, not the dataset level stuff. I agree that it should be added at the dataset 'level', but we don't have the clear proposal for how to do that. I'm not sure if we should require binding it to the dataset level - at Planet we have a lot of assets and it may make sense for an Item's asset to refer to its 'product definition' (asset metadata) dynamically, instead of saying it needs to be enumerated at the dataset level.
Though not sure if this is the best place to discuss this - this PR is just an attempt to make various bits better...
Mostly just removed outdated ideas
Tweaked the first bits, and added more on evolution and alignment with other specs.
Tweaked the readme to help explain a bit more.
* Made intro sentence describe what it does instead of what it extends * fixed link.
Would like to refine these a bit more, as the explanations aren't great (could use examples, etc) but wanted to at least get the basics in.
|
Ok, this is good for review. |
1 similar comment
|
Ok, this is good for review. |
Large PR that focuses on the overall structure and flow of the spec, aligning with all the great new changes, and doing lots of different clean up.
In particular, it focuses on #195 #194 and #152
It is marked Work In Progress as there is more to do, but making a PR so people can see what is coming.