Align with OGC API - Features Part 4: Simple Transactions extension

[cholmes]

updated to make clear the relationship with ogc api - features simple transactions extension

Related Issue(s): #33

Proposed Changes:

1. Put in links to OGC API - Features Part 4: Simple Transactions extension, and made clear that STAC's extends. Thankfully
   the semantics seemed to all be the same, but we should check to be sure when they have an openapi sample document

PR Checklist:

• [n/a] This PR is made against the dev branch (all proposed changes except releases should be against dev, not master).
• This PR has no breaking changes.
• I have added my changes to the CHANGELOG or a CHANGELOG entry is not required.
• API only: I have run npm run generate-all to update the generated OpenAPI files.

[m-mohr]

Should we convert this PR to a draft until we have the OpenAPI document from OAFeat?

[cholmes]

Ideally, but I'm not sure if we'll get updated openapi document by the time I'd like to release our beta.1

I guess I'd be inclined to put a bit more warning about that fact we are waiting for that, but that in the meantime people can just use our fragment.

Or I suppose we could attempt to contribute our fragment...

[cholmes]

Actually it looks like there is an OpenAPI sample in the ogc features repo: https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-features/blob/master/extensions/transactions/simple/examples/openapi/ogcapi-features-4-example1.yaml

I think we don't want to put it in our OAFeat core yaml though, since then it'll get built with our STAC core, even though it's an extension. So I think it'd make sense to update our transaction extension yaml to align with theirs, and then merge it in.

[cholmes]

Ok, I think this one is ready. Just worked to align our openapi with theirs. No major changes - changed our 200's to their 204's, used application/json with a ref instead of geojson and describing it, changed our 5xx to 500's.

I left reference to our Items, since they are features, and I think in ours we want to just allow STAC items, not any feature.

[m-mohr]

Was still reviewing it, but seems fine. Could probably be aligned a bit more and eventually replace our OpenAPI mostly, but we can do that later.

[cholmes]

Ah, apologies - should have looked for your approval. But yeah, I think we can iterate and align more, especially when they go to final. But this will get it on people's STAC radar.