Move "q" and "sortby" to features specification

[pvretano]

28-JUN-2021: At the TC there was discussion about moving all the API aspects of record to features. Basically q and sortby would be moved to features since they are relevant there too. Thus the RECORDS API specification would more-or-less be about the information model (i.e. the record). The API would be completely encapsulated in features.
@cportele mentioned that we may want to wait a bit also to see how the whole "registering building blocks" issue plays out in common.
In the mean time we can continue to develop the requirements for q and sortby keeping in mind they may move.

[jyutzler]

This issue is closely related to #125. If this standard is solely about the information model, then we should rename it - it is no longer an Implementation Standard (like OGC API-Features), but rather an Encoding Standard (like GeoPackage). I would be fine with moving all of the API-based stuff to Features (or confirm it is there) as long as the Features SWG members concur.

[pvretano]

04-OCT-2021: This is has not been discussed in Features so we will put it on the Features SWG agenda for next week. We also need to review with @ogcscotts what this means with respect to the charter.

[ogcscotts]

@pvretano The Charter still covers the case of where Records is evolving - SWGs are often about discovery and new ideas! No need to update the Charter.

[pvretano]

29-NOV-2021: We don't have quorum to make the official decision but no one on the call objects to having features take 1 and sortby AND to have records simply say "implement features as the search API". We will try to have another vote next week at the TC to make it official.

[pvretano]

04-APR-2022: Features is just finishing up CQL2 and Part 3 but once that is done they will circle back to q and sortby. In the meantime we will continue to develop these building blocks in Records.

[kalxas]

Reading opengeospatial/ogcapi-features#636 seems like Features is waiting for our agreement to move forward...

[pvretano]

@kalxas that comment was published in 2021 ... the Records SWG has long since given its concent ... both @cportele and I are aware of this and will move q and sortby in due time.

[kalxas]

Yes, I was referring to how it looks like, not how it actually is :)

[pvretano]

15-MAY-2023: Features is working on other priority issues right now so for the time being, we will continue developing the q and sortBy in Records. When the time comes, the switchover should be fairly straight forward and quick. If Records get to the point of being submitted to the OAB before Features is ready to accept, we may have to bump up the priority in Features. @cportele also mentioned that we could leave it in Record until after the public review of Records and move it afterwards ... that way, these two items would have already gone through public review.

[pvretano]

08-JUL-2024: Features has created two parts, 8-sorting and 9-text search, to initiate the process of moving these into features. It is unlikely that Features will be done before OAPIR becomes adopted so we will leave q and sortby in and in a future version we can remove these sections and normatively reference Parts 8 & 9 from Features.