- From: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 13:31:01 +0100
- To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- 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>
hello josh.
On 2016-02-17 17:25, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
> 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.
true. two thoughts:
- there is no GeoJSON-LD right now, so if people want to start using it,
then there should be some community effort to come up with an RDF
mapping that everybody can live with.
- duplicating data that's in GeoJSON member by also serializing it into
foreign members sounds rather brittle to me. it runs the risk of the
duplicated data getting out of sync. afaict, we're not explicitly
prohibiting this (and it would be hard to do, i guess), but "using"
GeoJSON and then ignoring its coordinates and instead using foreign JSON
members for that is hardly "using" GeoJSON at all.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net |
| http://dret.net/netdret |
| http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 14:47:11 UTC