Fix bands

[fmigneault]

Description

Properly validate the bands reference under mlm:input to refer to corresponding eo / raster / STAC 1.1 "bands" definition.

Added

• Add pattern for mlm:framework, needing at least one alphanumeric character,
  without leading or trailing non-alphanumeric characters.
• Add examples/item_eo_and_raster_bands.json demonstrating the original
  use case represented by the previous examples/item_eo_bands.json contents.
• Add a description field for mlm:input and mlm:output definitions.

Changed

• Adjust scikit-learn and Hugging Face framework names to match the format employed by the official documentation.

Deprecated

• n/a

Removed

• Removed combination of mlm:input with bands: null that could never occur due to pre-requirement of type: array.

Fixed

• Fix AnyBands definition and use in the JSON schema to better consider possible use cases with eo extension.
• Fix examples/item_eo_bands.json that was incorrectly also using raster extension.
  This is not fundamentally wrong, but it did not allow to validate the eo extension use case properly, since
  the raster:bands reference caused a bypass for the mlm:input[*].bands to succeed validation.

Related Issue

n/a

Type of Change

• 📚 Examples, docs, tutorials or dependencies update;
• 🔧 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue);
• 🥂 Improvement (non-breaking change which improves an existing feature);
• 🚀 New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality);
• 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change);
• 🔐 Security fix.

Checklist

• I've read the CONTRIBUTING.md guide;
• I've updated the code style using make codestyle;
• I've written tests for all new methods and classes that I created;
• I've written the docstring in Google format for all the methods and classes that I used.

[fmigneault]

@rbavery FYI

[rbavery]

This looks good! I read over the band and statistics description in the README. When STAC 1.1 is released, I'm hoping we can make a stronger suggestion to use the MLM with this version since it simplifies the choice between how to describe bands. right now that section is pretty complex and I could see it tripping up folks who aren't super familiar with STAC.

[fmigneault]

@rbavery Ideally, people will migrate to STAC 1.1 over time, and then bands would be preferable. However, I don't want this to become a limiting factor in using MLM if for some reason a catalog is stuck on 1.0. For sure, we can increase the emphasis on STAC 1.1 when it's ready.