Summarized considerations for Workflows extension
jerstlouis opened this issue · comments
This is a summary of issues submitted in response to the request for public comments, to be considered to ensure the possibility to define a Workflows extension, as being investigated in the Modular OGC API Workflows project.
These 3 issues have been filed separately:
mimeType
vs.mediaType
: #87- support
uom
andformat
in both ref and inline: #95 - add a
list
input type: #105
In #47 (comment) ), the following general changes have also been suggested:
- Inside an input, drop the
"input" : { "value" : {
part, and directly have e.g.href
next to theid
. Other properties currently going underinput
orvalue
(e.g.format
when needed) would go at the same level as that. - Rename
inlineValue
to simplyvalue
. When usingvalue
, numbers can be directly as numeric values, not strings (e.g."value" : 0.05
) -- it was confirmed that this is already possible.
In addition, to support the new proposed type of inputs identifying an OGC API collection (or a process generating one), a process description document would require an additional mechanism to specify that a particular input is expected to be a collection (and potentially support a particular API such as Features or Coverages). This could potentially be covered in the Workflows extension itself, but we should ensure that there is a mechanism to extend the process descriptoin document to make this possible.
Other additions and relaxed rules for the process execution schema are also being proposed specifically for the Workflows extension.
A draft OpenAPI definition and prototype server for the Modular OGC API Workflows extension is available at:
https://app.swaggerhub.com/apis/jerstlouis/MOAW/MOAW-0.2
and draft specifications available at:
https://github.com/jerstlouis/wps-rest-binding/tree/master/extensions/workflows
in hope of eventual inclusion in the official OGC API - Processes repository (see also PR #99).