Vector data cubes

[m-mohr]

Minor additions to the API only, Mostly reflecting the changes in stac-extensions/datacube#10 and the addition to the JSON Schema for the new datacube subtype.

[soxofaan]

The proposed name for the vector dimension is "geometry". We also had "vector" in mind as an alternative. Opinions?

GeoPandas also uses "geometry" by default for the column that contains the vector data, so "geometry" will sound conceptually familiar to people that know GeoPandas

[m-mohr]

This is ready for final review.

[soxofaan]

approve (with minor remark)

[m-mohr]

This is also ready for final review. There are some issues with the relevant tooling (redoc), so I can't express everything 1:1 in the API spec. The name for the vector dimension is now "geometries" (plural) in accordance with "bands", okay?

@soxofaan @mkadunc @aljacob @clausmichele @jdries @dthiex @LukeWeidenwalker @pierocampa

[soxofaan]

The name for the vector dimension is now "geometries" (plural) in accordance with "bands", okay?

I don't think that changing to plural "geometries" is really necessary. Apart from "bands", all dimension types and names are/look singular: "spatial", "temporal", "x", "y", "other".

As another data point here: geopandas uses singular "geometry" as column type and name in data frames, e.g. see https://geopandas.org/en/stable/docs/reference/api/geopandas.GeoDataFrame.html#geopandas.GeoDataFrame

[m-mohr]

I don't think that changing to plural "geometries" is really necessary.

Are you saying

       * `geometries` for dimensions of type `geometries`

should change to

      * `geometry` for dimensions of type `geometries`

?

[soxofaan]

I guess so.

If I understand correctly, the dimension type has already been settled on plural "geometries" in merged PR stac-extensions/datacube#10
so in this PR #441 there is only room to change the dimension name to singular "geometry", which would indeed not look very consistent in the recommendation

* name `geometry` for dimensions of type `geometries`

Sidenote: I noticed that @aljacob made related comment at Open-EO/openeo-processes#382 (review)

[m-mohr]

In principle we can still change everything as we just merged the PRs yet, but we have not released anything yet (including the STAC extension). Anyway, I'm merging this now and will then create a separate issue for this. Makes it easier to work on further improvements.

#479