Update to reflect that storing vectors in STAC is useful

[jsignell]

Mostly clarify that individual vectors should not be cataloged in STAC but groups are fine.

[hrodmn]

@jsignell is there a world in which you would have a STAC collection record for a feature collection that is also accessible via a OGC Features API? I could see how that would be useful for data discovery. The STAC collection could have a link to the Features API endpoint for the collection.

[jsignell]

@jsignell is there a world in which you would have a STAC collection record for a feature collection that is also accessible via a OGC Features API? I could see how that would be useful for data discovery. The STAC collection could have a link to the Features API endpoint for the collection.

Yeah absolutely. The STAC collection could have an asset where with a geoparquet or something containing all the data and then have a link that references the Features API. That is a good idea. I'll add it in.

[m-mohr]

Should we encode how to expose those (rel type or so)? Seems to be related to the web-map-links extension...

[jsignell]

I incorporated all the specific bullets that @cholmes mentioned in #34. It is possible that this section should be split into its own doc especially since it really does span items and collections and right now it is specifically in the items doc.

[jsignell]

The STAC collection could have ... a link that references the Features API.
Should we encode how to expose those (rel type or so)? Seems to be related to the web-map-links extension...

I am not sure there is a best practice for that yet. It is similar to the conversation we were having in the community meeting on Monday about how to represent an API service that is related to a particular set of data. Maybe we need a "service" relation type?

[m-mohr]

service might be interesting indeed, is related to the application extension. There we also have application-platform. service could also work, but might be a bit ambiguous with also having service-doc/desc etc.

[gadomski]

Reads well, just one format fix.

[jsignell]

I'm going to go ahead and merge since #40 isn't technically approved yet 😄