- From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:25:39 -0500
- To: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>
- Cc: Di Donato Pasquale swisstopo <Pasquale.DiDonato@swisstopo.ch>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, "public-sdw-comments@w3.org" <public-sdw-comments@w3.org>, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
The work with JSON in OGC Testbed 11 relied on the fact that GeoJSON can be extended with other JSON content as long as the core GeoJSON itself is conformant, for example adding a WKT version of the geometry for rational conversion to JSON-LD and/or RDF. In some ways, GeoJSON can be though of as one step up from a bounding box - useful information if that’s all you can deal with, but not all the information that might be available. How to get at and communicate that additional information when needed is a good part of the challenge for spatial data on the Web. JSON-LD based linkages that extend GeoJSON are one way to proceed that don’t necessarily require action by the GeoJSON group. Josh > On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net> wrote: > > 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 16:26:26 UTC