- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:23:33 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Thanks for that link @akuckartz
IMO the key problem with the GeoJSON vs JSON-LD issue is that it is based on an incorrect assumption.
At its core, RDF is for semantics, while JSON is for data transport. JSON-LD is OK to transport RDF. GeoJSON is OK to transport geometry. But the details of representation of geometry are not about the semantics, they are about mathematics*. And RDF is not tuned for mathematics. So it is no surprise that GeoJSON cannot be shoehorned into JSON-LD.
GeoSPARQL deals with the boundary between semantics and mathematics more honestly, by switching to a micro-format (WKT) when the boundary was crossed. The semantics of the information is managed on the RDF side of the boundary ('it is a geometry!") while the mathematical representation of the geometry is managed on the other side of the boundary ("it is a nested, ordered set of numbers").
* A point in space is a unitary concept, but our mathematical systems require several numbers to represent it. The numbers are not independent since they change together if the CRS changes.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/83#issuecomment-468313468 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2019 15:23:35 UTC