Allow alternate keywords for service

[fmigneault]

The current definition of "service" defines keywords as follows:

Marble-node-registry/node_registry.schema.json

Lines 96 to 103 in 7fc410a

	"keywords": {
	"type": "array",
	"minItems": 1,
	"items": {
	"type": "string",
	"pattern": "^catalog|data|jupyterhub|other|service-(wps|wms|wfs|wcs|ogcapi_processes)$"
	}
	},

Given the specific values specified (especially service-[...] prefixed values), it feels more like a "type" than a generic keyword listing.
Additional values cannot be provided either.

Should the definition allow extending with any other string, as long as at least 1 fulfills the requirement of the specific values?

[mishaschwartz]

As you point out, these are more "types" than "keywords".
What if we changed this one to "type" and then had another "keyword" list that allowed any string?

[fmigneault]

Yes. That would work also.
I was not sure about if it should be type: string or types: [string]?
I think ["catalog", "data"] would be a common occurrence.
What about other "types" that are not yet represented (e.g.: stac)?
Finally, would the service- prefix be redundant, and should it be removed?

[mishaschwartz]

I was not sure about if it should be type: string or types: [string]?
I think ["catalog", "data"] would be a common occurrence.

Yeah, we definitely should support multiple types.

What about other "types" that are not yet represented (e.g.: stac)?

STAC would be a "catalog" type right?

Finally, would the service- prefix be redundant, and should it be removed?

Sure that makes sense

[fmigneault]

STAC would be a "catalog" type right?

Yes. Good point.

So to summarize (other fields omitted just to be short) :

{
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "name",
    "types",
    "keywords",
    "description",
    "links"
  ],
  "properties": {
    "keywords": {
      "type": "array",
      "minItems": 1,
      "items": {
        "type": "string",
        "minLength": 1
      }
    },
    "types": {
      "type": "array",
      "minItems": 1,
      "items": {
        "type": "string",
        "enum": [
          "catalog",
          "data",
          "jupyterhub",
          "other",
          "wps",
          "wms",
          "wfs",
          "wcs",
          "ogcapi_processes"
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}

[mishaschwartz]

So to summarize

Look good, except for a few things:

• Making types required will break backwards compatibility with existing service definitions.
  • I'm actually fine with this but it will break for PAVICS (they're behind a few versions of birdhouse-deploy)
  • We could have multiple schemas that are used for different versions of birdhouse deploy since we're checking the version in update.py anyway, but this might require some thought as to how we want to implement that
• Do we want to support having no "keywords", either by not making it required or by not setting "minItems": 1,

[fmigneault]

• Making types required will break backwards compatibility with existing service definitions.

  • I'm actually fine with this but it will break for PAVICS (they're behind a few versions of birdhouse-deploy)

Indeed. Should we introduce version-specific schemas? Instead of
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DACCS-Climate/Marble-node-registry/main/node_registry.schema.json#service
the deployed instance should use
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DACCS-Climate/Marble-node-registry/1.1.0/node_registry.schema.json#service

Then, we can introduce 1.2.0 changes gradually into the respective services.

Do we want to support having no "keywords", either by not making it required or by not setting "minItems": 1,

I'm fine with removing that requirement.

[mishaschwartz]

Should we introduce version-specific schemas?

Yes for sure. That will help going forward but it won't really help with the backwards compatibility problem since the older ones are using main.

For that I'll probably have to make a conversion function in update.py that adds a default types value if it's not present.