-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Extend list of format codes. #467
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ include::../recommendations/ogc-process-description/REC_format-key.adoc[] | |||||
|
||||||
Processes that perform geo-spatial processing can be expected to have geometric and feature input types. In JSON, geometries, features and collections of feature are commonly encoded using https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7946[GeoJSON]. Rather the requiring processes descriptions to embed or reference the full schemas for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7946[GeoJSON] geometries, features or feature collections, this Standard defines a common set of convenience tokens that can be used instead. | ||||||
|
||||||
The <<jsonschemavalidation,JSON Schema specification>> defines a https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.7[set of values] for the `format` key. This Standard extends this list by defining the following additional key values for use specifically in OGC process descriptions for defining geometric, feature or feature collection inputs or outputs. | ||||||
The <<jsonschemavalidation,JSON Schema specification>> defines a https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.7[set of values] for the `format` key. This Standard extends this list by defining the following additional key values for use specifically in OGC process descriptions. | ||||||
|
||||||
[[format-key-values]] | ||||||
.Additional values for the JSON schema format key for OGC Process Description | ||||||
|
@@ -118,6 +118,14 @@ The <<jsonschemavalidation,JSON Schema specification>> defines a https://json-sc | |||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/geojson-feature |geojson-feature |Indicates that the object is an instance of a GeoJSON feature http://schemas.opengis.net/ogcapi/features/part1/1.0/openapi/schemas/featureGeoJSON.yaml[(featureGeoJSON.yaml)]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/geojson-geometry |geojson-geometry |Indicates that the object is an instance of a GeoJSON geometry http://schemas.opengis.net/ogcapi/features/part1/1.0/openapi/schemas/geometryGeoJSON.yaml[(geometryGeoJSON.yaml)]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/ogc-bbox |ogc-bbox |Indicates that the object is an instance of an OGC bounding box https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes/master/openapi/schemas/processes-core/bbox.yaml[(bbox.yaml)]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/epgc-code |epsg-code |Indicates that the value is a code from the https://epsg.io/[EPSG registry]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/wkt2-def |wkt2-def |Indicates that the string value is a https://docs.ogc.org/is/18-010r11/18-010r11.pdf[well-known text representation of a coordinate reference system]. | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe wkt2-definition? Then it would be aligned with openEO.
Suggested change
|
||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/cql2-text-filter |cql2-text |Indicates that the string value is a filter expression encoded using the text representation of the https://docs.ogc.org/is/21-065r2/21-065r2.html[Common Query Language (CQL2)]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/cql2-json-filter |cql2-json |Indicates that the string value is a filter expression encoded using the JSON representation of the https://docs.ogc.org/is/21-065r2/21-065r2.html[Common Query Language (CQL2)]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/collection-id |collection-id |Indicates that the string value is a https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/20-024.html#collection-description[collection identifier] (e.g. a feature collection identifier). | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/stac-collection |stac-collection |Indicates that the string value is a https://github.com/radiantearth/stac-spec/blob/master/collection-spec/collection-spec.md[STAC collection]. | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I got yet one more to propose while we are at it: The idea being, that you can request the STAC Items themselves as some-input:
collection: https://server.com/stac/api/v1/collection/something
type: application/geo+json # Should this be the Items FeatureCollection, or a Vector file found in Assets?
format: stac-items # specifically asking for the items, needed to disambiguate from OA Features some-input:
collection: https://server.com/stac/api/v1/collection/something
type: image/tiff; application=geotiff; profile=cloud-optimized
format: stac-collection # STAC Assets matching the COG media-type
# but why 'stac-collection'? -> properties to find them (therefore, not a OA Coverages)
filter: properties.eo:cloud_cover > 0.5 There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Relates to crim-ca/weaver#770 There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In STAC thats named ItemCollection, so maybe use stac-itemcollection instead? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. And what about a single item or a catalog? We discussed a longer list here: There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, we can align with OpenEO definitions if they actually mean the same. I'm mostly trying to map with the results from For the moment What if the STAC Assets themselves should be provided, is there a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There's nothing to align to in STAC right now, I think. There's just different specifications which for all there could be a usecase to pass them to processes. In openEO we just have a generic STAC type (i.e. item, collection, catalog). ItemCollection is missing, not sure whether that's intentional: Open-EO/openeo-processes#523 (but it's also a slightly different usecase, I think). We discussed that already in another issue, which listed potential options, I think. Here's the list of options again:
Providing STAC assets on its own doesn't make a lot of sense to me as usually the assets depend on the STAC container, e.g. if an asset has a relativ link you need to get the self link. Also, STAC asset metadata inherits from the properties/top-level metadata since STAC 1.1. So I'd not define a separate stac-asset format. Better pass the asset key in addition to the STAC entity if you want to process a specific asset. |
||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/ogc-feature-collection |ogc-feature-collection |Indicates that the string value is an https://docs.ogc.org/is/17-069r4/17-069r4.html#_collection_[OGC feature collection]. | ||||||
|http://www.opengis.net/def/format/ogcapi-processes/0/ogc-coverage-collection |ogc-coverage-collection |Indicates that the string value is an https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/19-087.html#_extended_collection_description_response_collectionscollectionid[OGC coverage collection]. | ||||||
|=== | ||||||
|
||||||
NOTE: This list of values has been submitted to the https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/ogcnasc[OGC Naming Authority] for registration in their definition server. | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Typo: