...
| Id. | Author | Section/Page number | Title | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JM | STAC-CORE-GEN-REC-0020 | Use of mixed case in e.g. platform values | Mis-alignment with the "searchable identifiers" recommendations here: https://github.com/radiantearth/stac-spec/blob/master/best-practices.md. Perhaps the recommendation should be that the naming follows GCMD but best practice for the case sensitivity is that of STAC. (Open for discussion) → ok fixed to lowercase |
| 2 | Mario Winkler (DLR) | STAC-CORE-COL-REC-0110 | Collection Identifier | The specific collection names for each EOF Service should be defined in the corresponding EOF Service ICDs since the set of collections is known in advance. → this will be done in the specific ICD related to each individual EOF Service |
| 3 | Mario Winkler (DLR) | STAC-CORE-COL-REC-0120 STAC-CORE-ITEM-REQ-0180 STAC-CORE-ITEM-REC-0190 | Semantics of "created" and "published" | The semantics of the "created" and "published" properties may differ between the EOF services. This should be reflected in the individual EOF Service ICDs. |
| 4 | Mario Winkler (DLR) | STAC-CORE-ITEM-REC-0190 | Additional timestamp information | There is a difference between data not being valid and not being available any more. Maybe differentiate this by also using the "unpublished" property from the Timestamps extension. |
| 5 | Mario Winkler (DLR) | STAC-API-ADVSRCH-CREQ-0630 | Set of fields returned by default | The default fields may differ between the various EOF Services and should be defined in the service-level ICDs. |
| 6 | Mario Winkler (DLR) | STAC-API-ADVSRCH-CREQ-0640 STAC-API-ADVSRCH-CREQ-0650 | Empty or no "fields" directive | Maybe consider to allow an EOF Service to tailor this behavior e.g. to optimize query performance. |
| 7 | Matthias Mohr | various |
| |
| 8 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | page 4 | outdated STAC version | STAC has been already released in version 1.1 beta (official release planned next week) so it would be beneficial to start with the most recent version instead of creating a technological backlog from the very beginning. Furthermore, the CDSE is implemented in v1.1. so PIRP in v 1.0 would not compatible. The extensions versions should also match the ones used in the CDSE. |
|
| |||
| 10 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | STAC-CORE -ASSET-REQ-0370 | STAC storage extension is outdated and temporarily removed from CDSE STAC | not clear if the extension would be adjusted to meet CDSE requirements |
| 11 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | STAC-API-SIMPSRCH-REQ-0520 | maximum allowed items per page not defined | |
| 12 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | STAC-API- ADVSRCH-CREQ-0570 | maximum number of vertexes in querable geometry not defined. | Not clear in the querable geometry can be a multipolygon? |
| 13 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | general comment | lack of specific list of required & recommended STAC extension with corresponding versions | |
| 13 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | general comment | lack of specific list of required STAC extension with corresponding versions | |
| 14 | Jan Musial (CloudFerro) | general comment | no relation to INSPIRE specification. It was agreed that the STAC should be INSPIRE compliant at collection level | |
|
...