Closed fmigneault closed 6 days ago
Part 4 currently proposes using GET /jobs/{jobId}/run for provenance (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes/tree/master/extensions/job_management/standard/requirements/provenance/run).
GET /jobs/{jobId}/run
In TB-20 GDC, the GET /jobs/{jobId}/prov endpoint is considered instead.
GET /jobs/{jobId}/prov
Given that the contents returned by GET /jobs/{jobId}/run are expected to be PROV specification (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes/blob/master/extensions/job_management/standard/requirements/provenance/run/REQ_response.adoc), it makes sense to use GET /jobs/{jobId}/prov, and leave GET /jobs/{jobId}/run for other metadata (if any).
Should the endpoint be changed, or an alias be defined?
If we find anything that should be considered, we can re-open this issue or open another issue.
Part 4 currently proposes using
GET /jobs/{jobId}/run
for provenance (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes/tree/master/extensions/job_management/standard/requirements/provenance/run).In TB-20 GDC, the
GET /jobs/{jobId}/prov
endpoint is considered instead.Given that the contents returned by
GET /jobs/{jobId}/run
are expected to be PROV specification (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes/blob/master/extensions/job_management/standard/requirements/provenance/run/REQ_response.adoc), it makes sense to useGET /jobs/{jobId}/prov
, and leaveGET /jobs/{jobId}/run
for other metadata (if any).Should the endpoint be changed, or an alias be defined?