Draft proposal for a collection summary #287
Conversation
tschaub
force-pushed
the
summary
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d6822fa
to
66c3692
Compare
tschaub
changed the title
extensions/summary/summary.md
Outdated
| ### A new resource per extension | ||
|
|
||
| We considered the alternative that each extension would add its own resource at a new path. For example, the filter extension might add a `/collections/buildings/queryables` resource. Then the search extension might add a `/collections/buildings/sortables` resource. And then the editing extension might add a `/collections/buildings/writeables` resource. This began to feel unscalable and awkward for clients who want to get a complete picture of how to work with a collection. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and those various capabilities would still have a need to point to the schema, so a lot of redundancy
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Even if this were possible, our concern was that generic schema parsers would not expose these additional properties to a client. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is possible. JSON schema allows for custom keywords and many validators allow to implement custom logic for this.
|
|
||
| This proposal doesn't introduce any breaking changes. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives considered |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you had a look at the STAC Collection summaries? Even if you not consider it, it would be good if names would not conflict too much...
|
Code Sprint 2024-02-27: A draft of "Part 5: Schemas" exists and addresses the need for feature schemas to describe the feature properties ("returnables"), the editable properties ("receivables"), the properties that can be used in filters ("queryables") and the properties that can be used to sort features ("sortables"). The part is expected to be submitted for OGC Architecture Board Review and then Public Comment soon. We are, therefore, closing this draft PR and invite comments on the draft of Part 5. |
This is a draft proposal for a "summary" resource that would allow clients to get additional information about items in a collection. I've provided a bit of motivation in the proposal doc itself. This is a very "drafty" draft - plenty of room for discussion on alternative ways to get this done.
I didn't see the Alternative Schema until after creating this PR (and then reshaped this to use the same proposal template). Interesting that that tries to address some of the same concerns. Good evidence that there is motivation.