[pygeoapi] PSC vote: RFC7: Data validation for transactions

[Francesco Bartoli]

Hi Tom,

before moving forward with this can we clarify how you would like to coordinate with RFC 6 which had already got three +1 with no other comments and has somehow some overlaps with the data validation design?

If I remember well what we discussed in one of our last meetings the plan was:
1. Keep RFC6’s description only for the introduction of a plugin context without any relation with pydantic’s removal and moving forward with the approval with the missing two votes
2. split PR https://github.com/geopython/pygeoapi/pull/2307 into two and move the plugin context implementation to a new PR that would close RFC 6

Regarding the RFC7 implementation I will leave some comments directly in the PR.

Thanks,
Francesco
On 10 Aug 2026 at 14:53 +0200, Jorge S. Mendes de Jesus via pygeoapi <pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org>, wrote:
> +1
>
> On 8/10/26 12:20 PM, Just van den Broecke via pygeoapi wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On 07/08/2026 13:20, Tom Kralidis via pygeoapi wrote:
> > > > Hi all: FYI per subject, putting RFC7 [1] to PSC vote.
> > > >
> > > > I will start with my +1.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > ..Tom
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://pygeoapi.io/development/rfc/7
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > pygeoapi mailing list
> > > > pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> > > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
> > _______________________________________________
> > pygeoapi mailing list
> > pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
>
> _______________________________________________
> pygeoapi mailing list
> pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pygeoapi/attachments/20260810/f4510a49/attachment-0001.htm>