opengeospatial / opengeospatial/ogcapi-processes
We should review and consider the OpenEO process Graph for Workflows
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- AsciiDoc
- Stars
- 63
- Forks
- 46
- Avg merge
- 2d 1h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Description
The purpose of this issues is just to register the fact that in the process of creating Part 3 (Workflows) we should review and consider the work already done with the OpenEO process graph and perhaps the SNAP graph (although based on what I have seen so far it seems that OpenEO process graph and SNAP graph are translatable one to the other).
There is interest to see if OpenEO process graphs can inform the work on Part 3 or even be a conformance class of Part 3.
See also #47 where there was some discussion between @jerstlouis and @m-mohr.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the OpenEO process graph and, if relevant, the SNAP graph, then read the discussion in #47. Compare these approaches with the Part 3 (Workflows) work and determine whether OpenEO graphs should inform Part 3 or serve as a conformance class; done means recording a clear conclusion for the specification work.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- api
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100