search

CS-SI / eopf-stac-extension

Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
3 stars 0 forks source link

Mixing concerns and relation to other extensions #2

Open m-mohr opened 3 months ago

m-mohr commented 3 months ago

It looks like this extensions heavily mixes concerns: some fielda are about ids, some are instrument-related, same are processing-related, etc. It feels like everything that wasn't found yet in STAC was just put into one place. That's not a good idea, I think. Also, what's the relation with other extensions:

For example, pixel_classification seems related to the classification extension. It may need some improvements (https://github.com/stac-extensions/classification/issues/47) but generally, the changes should probably be made there instead of adding a new field.

Image size seems related to proj:shape. Shouldn't this be part of the bands, too?

eopf:instrument_mode seems related to sar:instrument_mode, but you may need that for additional types of instruments of course. Same for eopf:instrument_swath, this should probably be proposed as a general purpose field, e.g. in an instrument extension?

Generally, many of these fields don't look overly EOPF specific. I'd try to avoid that to not run into a proprietary niche regarding tooling support.

cbouzina commented 3 months ago

Thanks for providing your point of view and your ideas.

Unfortunately, the classification extension does not provide the amount of pixels concerned by each class, and the projection extension does not provide the possibility of several shapes for different rasters in a product type.

Following the exchanges we had last year on https://gitter.im/SpatioTemporal-Asset-Catalog/Lobby, we now use several extensions as much as possible: processing, eo, sat, view and sci.

m-mohr commented 3 months ago

Why not contribute these ideas to the existsing STAC extensions? Have you raised issues in the existsing extensions?

cbouzina commented 3 months ago

OK, I will do.

cbouzina commented 3 months ago

Do you think we could add instrument_mode and instrument_swath to the sat extension ?

m-mohr commented 3 months ago

Is instrument mode something that could also apply to non-satellited? It may be warranted in this case to create a new instrument extensions that defines these two fields. In general, both fields would ideally define a voabulary of allowed values, otherwise the fields are pretty useless.

cbouzina commented 3 months ago

Yes, instrument mode and instrument swath can also be used for airborne or drone or any moving platform.

For a given instrument, there are typically less than 4 values for each (mode and swath).

jdries commented 3 months ago

I believe proj:shape can be specified at the level of individual assets, so also don't see the need to introduce a new property for this here.