Avoid overlap between Architecture and Interface factor

[psacra]

Examples:

• at the moment, the Architecture factor includes a sub-section on Datacube and a recommendation "DCUBE#6 | Data Cubes should provide REST API and OGC web services based access for easy integration of end user applications" which seems to belong in the Interface factor;
• it also includes a "Cloud computing architecture" sub-section which starts out with "The Cloud computing architecture supports standardized API, protocols and provides capability for publishing resources as services"

Furthermore, as per an internal DAIG meeting on the Interface factor, there could/should be cross-references between factors, to direct readers to other places in the handbook that are related to, further specify, or explain other recommendations.

[alexgleith]

Hi @psacra, I think it's a good idea to go a bit further and remove the datacube heading and replace it with a "technologies" heading, covering a broader set of recommended technologies, including the Open Data Cube.

I'm going to dive into the Cloud section with a bunch of proposed recommendations soon, probably drafting this week.

[nitantdube]

Yes agree to @psacra remarks, currently the points are in the factors so that we don't miss them. We need cross references rather than repeating.

[ycespb]

In my opinion, the "technology section" does not belong in the interface chapter (as proposed in an open pull request). If it is precise enough, specific recommendation should fit in one of the existing subsections of interfaces, e.g. OGC API Features / STAC is already addressed in other sections. Other OGC API (there are many) belong under data access. Not sure there is a consensus about which ones are to be recommended over other ones... I don't see the added value of having this is a "technology" section. inside the interface chapter.

[nitantdube]

OK, Will discuss

[psacra]

I share @ycespb 's view, I also don't see Technologies fitting in Interface, because a certain technology is typically implementing some functionality and we are more concerned with capturing the actual functionality and agreed standards that implement that functionality (which can be implemented using different technologies).

[nitantdube]

OK, we need to find place for it, will discuss

[alexgleith]

Do you think it does belong in the Architecture factor @psacra and @ycespb?

[psacra]

In my opinion it doesn't belong to any factors, it's more a matter of whether the handbook should include technologies at all. If yes, I think there could be a transversal section/chapter talking about technologies.

The way I see it, interoperability is about concepts and standards, if we go into technologies we cross into implementation, which is undesirable? Maybe the right place is an Annex, to spread the word on existing technologies that implemented the concepts and standards that the handbook covers.

[alexgleith]

The previous handbook had a lot of technology recommendations.

Perhaps an annex is a good idea.