Confusing schemas for `themes`

[m-mohr]

I just searched for information about themes and found various schemas and examples, which was a bit confusing:

Maybe check the following files whether they are up-to-date:

• themes is an array of URIs? Looks wrong: https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/standard/clause_12_local_resources_catalogue.adoc#example
• type: datetime? What's that? https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/examples/json/queryables.json

These look consistent:

• https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/examples/json/record.json
• https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/examples/json/keywords-themes.json
• https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/openapi/schemas/catalogue.yaml
• https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/openapi/schemas/recordGeoJSON.yaml
• https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/openapi/ogcapi-records-1.yaml

[pvretano]

@m-mohr yeah, the examples are not quite up to date relative to the schemas. I have it on my todo list to update and augment them. Need to do a general validation of all example relative to the current state of the schemas.

[m-mohr]

@pvretano Thanks. The "good" schemas itself also have an issue, I think. Neither concepts nor scheme is required. I assume both should be required?

In the STAC extension I made the schema a bit more strict in general (doesn't need to get adopted to Records, just fyi):

{
          "type": "array",
          "minItems": 1,
          "items": {
            "type": "object",
            "required": [
              "concepts",
              "scheme"
            ],
            "properties": {
              "concepts": {
                "type": "array",
                "items": {
                  "type": "object",
                  "required": [
                    "id"
                  ],
                  "properties": {
                    "id": {
                      "type": "string",
                      "minLength": 1
                    },
                    "title": {
                      "type": "string",
                      "minLength": 1
                    },
                    "description": {
                      "type": "string",
                      "minLength": 1
                    },
                    "url": {
                      "type": "string",
                      "format": "uri"
                    }
                  }
                }
              },
              "scheme": {
                "type": "string",
                "minLength": 1
              }
            }
          }
        }

[pvretano]

@m-mohr I'll have to check with the author of that schema about why concepts and scheme are not required. Not exactly sure why that is the case ... makes sense that they should be otherwise there is little distinction with keywords. Thanks for the heads up.

[tomkralidis]

Thanks @m-mohr. PR in #237

[m-mohr]

Great, the requirements are fixed. Now it's just open to clean-up some older files, right?

• themes is an array of URIs? Looks wrong: https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/standard/clause_12_local_resources_catalogue.adoc#example

• type: datetime? What's that? https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/blob/master/core/examples/json/queryables.json

[tomkralidis]

Thanks @m-mohr. Associated PR in #236.

[m-mohr]

@tomkralidis Thanks, but I don't see any changes in #236 to the two files mentioned in https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/issues/235#issuecomment-1528834725 ?!

[m-mohr]

Oh, I guess that's a typo and meant #246 :-)

[tomkralidis]

Oops mea culpa, yes #246 :)

[tomkralidis]

Given #246 is now merged, I think we can close this one @pvretano @m-mohr ?

[pvretano]

Resolved by PR #246 ... closing. Create a new issue or re-open this one if something comes up.