Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updated best practices about applicable date-time of the mdel #29

Open
fmigneault opened this issue Oct 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Updated best practices about applicable date-time of the mdel #29

fmigneault opened this issue Oct 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
best-practices Issue related to documenting best-practices. enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@fmigneault
Copy link
Collaborator

🚀 Feature Request

Update the best-practices folloing discussions and allowed values (see links).

🔉 Motivation

With STAC, datetime, start_datetime and end_datetime typically represent the temporal extent applicable by the data. However, in the case of a model, the temporal extent could apply for an undefined range (i.e.: any past or future date can be processed by a given model, it does not have a temporal context limitation).

Given that STAC does not allow null values for temporal extents (at the time of writing, see discussion links), the Best Practices currently warn about recommended generic values for those open date-times.

Other ongoing discussions (OGC, GeoJSON, etc.) hint toward allowing null for similar cases. If this comes to be accepted by STAC Core specification, the best practices should be updated accordingly, which a consideration of the applied stac_version.

📡 Alternatives

📎 Additional context

@fmigneault fmigneault added enhancement New feature or request best-practices Issue related to documenting best-practices. labels Oct 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
best-practices Issue related to documenting best-practices. enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant