- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:44:59 +0200
- To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu>
On 20/07/2016 17:54, Joshua Lieberman wrote: > I’ve added a comment to the wiki about geometry serialization negotiation: > > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL#Negotiate_geometry_serializations > > It seems the best idea may be to define a content type parameter for the > available / desired serialization, but that would presumably need to be > added to a linked spatial data API best practice. Thanks, Josh. I wonder whether this is another case where profile-based content negotiation can play a role. On the other hand, there might be an alternative solution to deal with this issue, e.g., by using URIs for geometries. In such a case, you fetch the RDF, and then apply content negotiation on the geometry URI to get WKT, GML, KML, GeoJSON, etc. So, basically, you get to the geometry in two steps. This relates to the WG discussion on "geometries as first-class citizens", and count some implementations - as those I outlined in an earlier email [1]. It may be worth assessing them wrt to the general issue of serving spatial (linked) data in multiple formats. Cheers, Andrea ---- [1]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016May/0099.html > > —Josh
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2016 16:45:43 UTC