- From: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:50:25 +0100
- To: Di Donato Pasquale swisstopo <Pasquale.DiDonato@swisstopo.ch>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, "public-sdw-comments@w3.org" <public-sdw-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
hello pasquale. On 2016-02-17 11:17 , Di Donato Pasquale swisstopo wrote: > In GeoJSON, as far as I understand it, geometry is a first > class object and one cannot use more than one geometry-object, or am I > wrong? you are correct. GeoJSON does not have the goal to represent the full complexity of spatial databases and models. instead, the idea is that it is used for communications and contexts when the requirement is to exchange representations of geometric data or features. i'd say that in the majority of cases where GeoJSON is used, the GeoJSON representations originate in a richer and more complex model, which then gets simplified for some application context. within that context, GeoJSON can be useful. but do not expect it to retain the full fidelity of the back-end model. a good pattern may be to relate GeoJSON objects back to their model origin by including their identifiers. however, GeoJSON is mostly silent on how to do this, and so far only mentions the possibility of using an identifier for "feature" objects. i have raised an issue in the GeoJSON working group to possibly extend that to cover all object types: https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues/150 cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net | | http://dret.net/netdret | | http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 14:50:57 UTC