Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Orestis Herodotou
    @digitaltopo
    I agree it would be a good call to have a single OpenAPI doc so that one could potentially publish a STAC service's definitions by inheriting from a single document, something like:
    http://api.mystacapi.com/api:
    openapi: 3.0.3
    info:
      title: My STAC
      version: 1.0.0
      description: >-
        My STAC Service.
      contact:
        name: STAC Developer
        url: 'http://stacdev.com'
    servers:
      - description: "Production Server"
        url: "https://api.mystacapi.com/"
    tags:
      - name: STAC
        description: Implements the STAC API spec
      - name: Capabilities
        description: "Essential characteristics of this API"
    paths:
      '/':
        $ref: ' https://api.stacspec.org/v1.0.0-beta.1/openapi.yaml#/paths/~1' <------
    Matthew Hanson
    @matthewhanson
    I thought that first openapi.yaml was the combined doc, but guess we didn’t get that up there.
    Orestis Herodotou
    @digitaltopo
    https://api.stacspec.org/v1.0.0-beta.1/openapi.yaml seems to cover only the core spec
    Rob Emanuele
    @lossyrob
    not sure why this was commented out, but it seems like we stopped doing the combine doc build at some point?https://github.com/radiantearth/stac-api-spec/blob/master/.circleci/build-openapi.sh
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    I forget all the reasons @lossyrob but it got way more difficult with the refactor into the conformance classes.
    So the script had to be redone. Matt and Matthias tried a couple times, but there was some tricky particular thing that made it a big pain.
    Matthew Hanson
    @matthewhanson
    Yeah, it’s coming back now. I remember trying several different ways to combine the different specs
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    Oh yeah, that's what it was. None of the tooling really combined things in the way we were expecting they would.
    Rob Emanuele
    @lossyrob
    Makes sense. It would be great to get a set of cononical specs with the best practices extensions merged in for APIs to reference/test themselves against; something I may be taking a look at in the next month or so
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    By the way, the conformance classes in the EOD implementation are invalid, aren't they?
    Phil Varner
    @philvarner
    @m-mohr yes
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    I got slammed with meetings right when we pretty much finished everything. Sorry for not pushing it out earlier. Just got the final two PR's merged, and cut the PR for dev -> master
    radiantearth/stac-spec#1073 - review would be great @philvarner / @matthewhanson / @lossyrob / @jbants / @jisantuc / anyone else (@m-mohr is likely asleep, so hopefully we actually get it merged before he does). Need 3 +1's to merge to master.
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    What is sleep? I've approved ;-)
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    lol. thanks.
    Ah shoot... Just realized we didn't actually include the biggest change in the changelog :(
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    Ok, fixed it, as well as the other little issue Matthias raised. PR needs reviews for dev, and then merge to master: radiantearth/stac-spec#1074
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    Thanks @matthewhanson and @jisantuc. Now the one that goes from dev to master - radiantearth/stac-spec#1075
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    The RC2 release is broken, we did not replace all rc.1 occurrences with rc.2 The schema for rc.2 expects stac_versions to be set to rc.1
    I think I'd be in favor to delete the release and quickly re-release. Or we need to instantly publish rc.3
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    As a quick fix to not annoy implementors, I fixed the schemas published to gh-pages / schemas.stacspec.org manually.
    Emmanuel Mathot
    @emmanuelmathot
    Indeed, I was wondering what went wrong in schema validation :-) Thx
    Emmanuel Mathot
    @emmanuelmathot
    @m-mohr Could you also update https://github.com/radiantearth/stac-spec/blob/master/package.json manually? We use it as current version reference
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    @emmanuelmathot No, only via radiantearth/stac-spec#1076
    But feel free to approve it, which will likely lead to merging it sooner.
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    Ugh. +1 on delete and re-release.
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    We need a final approval for: radiantearth/stac-spec#1075
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    @philvarner / @lossyrob / @jbants / @jisantuc / @joshfix - could someone give a quick +1 on #1075?
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    It might be good to also get radiantearth/stac-spec#1079 in
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    Hey @matthewhanson, the CI publishing works now. Look at the insanity with the regexp! :-D
    Oh an I've re-released rc2
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    nice, thanks @m-mohr!
    Jonas Eberle
    @jonas-eberle
    Hi all, I have a GeoTIFF with two bands, which I would like to describe in two assets within a STAC item. Is there a way to reference the band number within the asset property? I couldn't find any note about this. Is the recommended way to avoid multi-band files? Thanks.
    9 replies
    Orestis Herodotou
    @digitaltopo
    In my STAC API's service description (openapi.yaml etc) should there be a field that says what STAC version my api is using? Or fine just to leave it in the actual api responses only
    Chris Holmes
    @cholmes
    It's not required, and I think we've just assumed that the /conformance/ endpoint is where people will get that info. But I could see it being useful, so I'd say no reason not to include it in the description.
    Matthew Hanson
    @matthewhanson
    Looking to get the ItemCollection extension finalized. Since it's a new STAC object rather than a typical extension, and it links to specific versions of schemas in stac-spec it makes sense to keep it's version in sync with stac-spec and move to a 1.0.0 release with that.
    Any comments on stac-extensions/item-collection#3 ?
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    No working session today, it seems?
    Manu86
    @Manu860324_twitter
    Hi lads, I am new on the chat. In my project we are trying to implement STAC metadata to several datasets. Do you know if it is acceptable to have a STAC item json file with no asset? (I have tried to look it up in the chat before but haven't seen an answer related to this, apologise in advance if it has been answered already). Thank you in advance
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    @Manu860324_twitter As far as I can see there's no requirement to have assets. What's yout use case?
    Manu86
    @Manu860324_twitter
    Hey @m-mohr , we are a group working on specifications for creating AI ready EO datasets with ESA (https://eo4society.esa.int/projects/aireo/). We have some metadata elements we need to implement using STAC. The metadata elements change based on the profile of your data, like georeferenced image, georeferenced data, classified image, etc. Is there a way to implement these in STAC? Also, if you have time we can have a call.
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    @Manu860324_twitter I think it could be a good idea to join the bi-weekly STAC call on Mondays and discuss your issue and use case :-) @matthewhanson can invite you.
    James Santucci
    @jisantuc:matrix.org
    [m]
    for others who are validating using json schema -- are you handwriting the full json schema resolution, or does your lib handle that for you? what i'm using in Scala for on-the-fly validation on read from Franklin seems happy to resolve links in the file system but doesn't want to follow http links
    Manu86
    @Manu860324_twitter
    @m-mohr @matthewhanson , it would be really helpful if you guys can invite me to your STAC call on Monday to explain on detail what we are trying to do. Is it possible to invite my colleagues who are dealing with this as well?
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    @Manu860324_twitter Sure, maybe just send @matthewhanson a private message via Gitter with your e-mail addresses?
    @jisantuc:matrix.org I think I also had similar issues with ajv in JS, but the other way round.
    James Santucci
    @jisantuc:matrix.org
    [m]
    looks like either pystac isn't handling the URLs yet or i'm reading the docs about validation incorrectly, but seems like i might be rolling my own here eventually. thanks @m-mohr for chiming in about ajv
    Matthias Mohr
    @m-mohr
    @jisantuc:matrix.org Found it again, here's the ajv doc: https://ajv.js.org/guide/managing-schemas.html#asynchronous-schema-loading
    There you also need to implement IO (e.g. HTTP requests, loading from file system) yourself, too.
    In the Node Validator I used https://github.com/APIDevTools/json-schema-ref-parser to resolve things before passing them to ajv.