#260: Rename 'Dataset extension' to 'Collection extension' + other improvements #280
Conversation
m-mohr
force-pushed
the
dataset-rename
branch
from
8fbfe02 to
be5b769
Compare
m-mohr
force-pushed
the
dataset-rename
branch
from
cd20274 to
36ed23c
Compare
m-mohr
changed the title
Everything solved from your side, @matthewhanson? |
m-mohr
changed the title
Recommendations moved elsewhere, so removing this paragraph and its broken link.
The other readme's link to the actual spec in the first couple lines. With this one you have to dig a bit before you get the link, and you could be thrown off by the links to the other specs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall it looks really great. I put in a number of suggestions. I'm not going to make this 'request changes' so I don't block merging until I wake up on monday. And definitely not everything I wrote is required to do. The things that I would most like to see are:
- use 'collections' rel in examples instead of 'root', since we are making the former strongly recommended, while the latter we just mention.
- Extension discussion in the main specs - I'd like to caveat them more, as right now they read like we are fully endorsing extensions at the same level as the main spec. I want us to get there, but I think we need more mature extensions.
I also made a couple minor PR's, so ideally incorporate those.
Thanks for all this work! It's looking really good. Feel free to merge after addressing my points above.
| spatial and temporal extents of all the data contained. A STAC search extension would only query those collections which | ||
| have data that validates as STAC `Items` - with a datetime field and references to assets. But a STAC can live alongside | ||
| spatial and temporal extents of all the data contained. The collections returned are compliant to both WFS Collections and | ||
| [STAC collections](../collections-spec/README.md). A STAC search extension would only query those collections which |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would ideally like a bit more discussion here, reiterating the point of the STAC collections, and contrasting them against WFS collections, perhaps mentioning any additional alignment we'd see in the future, etc. Not required to merge this by any means, but definitely a nice to have.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be added at some point, but don't feel that I can really make a good proposal for this one now. Feel free to make a PR for it?!
Removed recommendation section
Added more prominent link to collection spec
…ons and the commons extension.
…ntific extension.
|
I merged this PR now as I think I solved all important comments. Thanks for reviewing. If there's still something missing, I think it is easier to open a separate PR instead of using this rather large and messy PR. |
As discussed in #260.
This PR also fixes a bunch of issues in the examples found while reading through them.