You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As suggested at the OGC API - Common session of the 127th Members Meeting in Singapore:
It would be great if Part 2 could include a conformance class for "schemas" that would describe the properties / field of the collection of geospatial data, in line with what Features is defining in Part 5: Schemas ( opengeospatial/ogcapi-features#740 ).
This could be kept to a minimum:
guidance for link relation types to link to the schema
specifying that a JSON representation of the schema will be a JSON Schema
specifying the /collections/{collectionId}/schema resource ?
specifying the x-ogc-* mechanism for extending JSON Schema with semantic annotations
We are now also using this approach in OGC API - Coverages to describe the fields of the coverage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We have a full draft for Schemas now in https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/20-024.html#rc-schemas (update not yet auto-generated).
It integrates the Schemas, Property roles, Returnables/Receivables, Queryables and Sortables requirement classes of Features - Part 5.
As suggested at the OGC API - Common session of the 127th Members Meeting in Singapore:
It would be great if Part 2 could include a conformance class for "schemas" that would describe the properties / field of the collection of geospatial data, in line with what Features is defining in Part 5: Schemas ( opengeospatial/ogcapi-features#740 ).
This could be kept to a minimum:
/collections/{collectionId}/schema
resource ?x-ogc-*
mechanism for extending JSON Schema with semantic annotationsWe are now also using this approach in OGC API - Coverages to describe the fields of the coverage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: