Update docs, tests, summaries for stable extensions

[duckontheweb]

Related Issue(s): #

• Implement collection summary functionality #327
• Update extension pydoc strings to match new extension architecture #326

Description:

• Updates API docs for view, projection, and scientific extensions
• Makes doi an optional argument for ScientificExtension and Publication to match spec
• Implements summaries for view, projection, and scientific extensions
• Simplifies summary getter/setter docstrings

stac-fields indicates that JSON Schema format should be used for sci:citation summaries, but using a simple list seemed more appropriate, so that's how I implemented it for now. @m-mohr @matthewhanson Maybe you have more insight around the rationale for using the JSON Schema summaries for that field?

PR Checklist:

• Code is formatted (run scripts/format)
• Tests pass (run scripts/test)
• This PR maintains or improves overall codebase code coverage.
• Changes are added to the CHANGELOG. See the docs for information about adding to the changelog.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #372 (0d406d1) into main (c62f0fb) will increase coverage by 0.26%.
The diff coverage is 98.54%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #372      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.43%   89.69%   +0.26%     
==========================================
  Files          39       39              
  Lines        5063     5154      +91     
==========================================
+ Hits         4528     4623      +95     
+ Misses        535      531       -4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pystac/extensions/label.py	85.89% <ø> (ø)
pystac/extensions/scientific.py	96.15% <96.66%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
pystac/extensions/eo.py	97.34% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
pystac/extensions/projection.py	96.63% <100.00%> (+0.52%)	⬆️
pystac/extensions/view.py	97.45% <100.00%> (+1.35%)	⬆️
pystac/extensions/base.py	91.48% <0.00%> (+2.12%)	⬆️
pystac/summaries.py	78.20% <0.00%> (+2.56%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c62f0fb...0d406d1. Read the comment docs.

[m-mohr]

Yeah, maybe "v" is better as "s" on citation.

We had the case where we had a regexp for the year number in the citation summary, which would be a use case. But I agree that in general, a list of values is probably the better option.

Opened PR stac-utils/stac-fields#11 for it.

[lossyrob]

Looking good, couple of suggestions but overall +1