-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
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
Question regarding "Draft proposal "Query by IDs"" #839
Comments
Also wondering if there is any relationship with the "externalIds" parameter in Records... syntax and execution seems to be similar to the "ids" one, but the semantic is maybe not a match. |
@sebastianfrey - We have not really had a discussion about the proposal yet (the same is true for most other proposals, the focus has been lately on moving the candidate standards forward and clarify questions on the approved standards). The next working group meeting is on 3 July, I will put it on the agenda. Personally, I support the proposal, it consider it a fundamental capability. In that sense, maybe it belongs into Part 1 (as a new conformance class) in a version 1.1? With respect to the discussion item, I would treat @aaime - As far as I understand it, this is different. |
@cportele Thank you for the quick response. That's great to know. I am looking forward to hearing the result. |
@aaime @cportele correct. As for the |
Yes, of course, these must be only the values of the |
Meeting 2023-07-03: We agree that this is a fundamental capability and should be in a new conformance class in Part 1 (version 1.1). It will be another filter parameter that will be combined with a logical AND with the other filter parameter. |
Just to lend support to the proposal, we have an implementation of this ... |
@cportele Around a year ago I have submitted the draft proposal Query by IDs with PR #691.
Now I am interested in implementing that proposal in the GeoServers OGC API community plugin. For more details see here.
As suggested by @aaime in the linked Jira issue, it would be good, to check with you, if the proposal is still considered as useful by the committee and the direction of the proposed API is not considered as totally off the track.
I am looking forward for your feedback on that.
Thank you very much!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: