Replies: 2 comments 4 replies
-
Does a server need to advertise this? I had been thinking in the case of a server that already does it, there's no action (i.e. pgstac) but in the case of a server that doesn't do it, a client library should be able to take a Or are you saying the user when making an API request should be able to control wether or not item records are hyrdated from collection record data. PS: the use case we've been discussing internally is the Classification extension which can be very verbose for a lot of categories. https://planetarycomputer.microsoft.com/api/stac/v1/collections/usgs-lcmap-conus-v13/items/LCMAP_CU_032003_2021_V13_CCDC |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Is the only advantage that the response payload is potentially smaller? It feels like a lot of added complexity for a debatable benefit IMHO. This also reminds me of the Commons Extension in STAC back in STAC 0.x, which we abandoned at some point for probably good reasons (which I can't fully remember, but I guess it felt too complex for the added benefit). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Items can contain a lot of duplicate information. pgstac has the concept of hydration where repeated information is removed from Items and stored in the item assets on a Collection. Now that item assets are "first class" as of STAC v1.1, I think it's time to explore "client side hydration", where items are returned from a STAC API "deydrated" and then hydrated by the client. We've pulled out the (Rust backed) https://github.com/developmentseed/hydraters/ from pgstac with this in mind.
As I see it, there's a couple of things we'd need to do to proof this out:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions