Skip to content

Inconsistent asset key naming scheme within and across collections #406

@scottyhq

Description

@scottyhq

Asset key names recently changed for certain collections, and unfortunately are inconsistent across Items. For example:

GEDI

asset keys for main H5 data appear to be a combination of version and file path so are non-unique across items:

https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/cloudstac/LPCLOUD/collections/GEDI02_A_002/items/GEDI02_A_2019108002012_O01959_01_T03909_02_003_01_V002

has asset key "002/GEDI02_A_2019108002012_O01959_01_T03909_02_003_01_V002/GEDI02_A_2019108002012_O01959_01_T03909_02_003_01_V002"

but https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/cloudstac/LPCLOUD/collections/GEDI02_A_002/items/GEDI02_A_2019108063057_O01963_04_T01067_02_003_01_V002

has ""002/GEDI02_A_2019108063057_O01963_04_T01067_02_003_01_V002/GEDI02_A_2019108063057_O01963_04_T01067_02_003_01_V002"

ICESat-2

Similarly icesat-2 has asset keys appear to a different substring of the storage path:

https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/cloudstac/NSIDC_CPRD/collections/ATL06_007/items/ATL06_20181014001049_02350102_007_01.h5

has:
"gov/nsidc-cumulus-prod-protected/ATLAS/ATL06/007/2018/10/14/ATL06_20181014001049_02350102_007_01"

Proposal

I was expecting all collections to have simple, standard asset keys (B01, B02, B03... etc) like HLS:
https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/cloudstac/LPCLOUD/collections/HLSL30_2.0/items/HLS.L30.T59WPT.2013101T001445.v2.0

Even something generic like "Data" or "H5file" I think would be more useful compared to the current IS2 and GEDI schemes.

More discussion of consistent asset key naming within a collection as a STAC best practice here:
radiantearth/stac-best-practices#7

And I noticed this related issue here showing how this has been an annoyance in the past for other datasets. cc @chuckwondo
#326

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions