Re: ACTION-98: Look at a list/matrix of the common formats (geojson, gml, rdf, json-ld) and what you can or can't achieve with it

Hi Chris,

I have added JSON-LD only because it was listed in the action. Otherwise I probably wouldn’t have included it in this draft as there is no current guidance how to represent features or geometry in JSON-LD. The same is true (even more) for CSV as far as I know. Sure, one can add columns with lat and long, or an address as text, etc, but is there any referencable good practice how to represent spatial data in CSV?

If W3C Data Cubes should be added, someone else will have to provide the information as I have no experience with them.

Clemens

> On 25 Nov 2015, at 14:34, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Clemens,
> 
> How about adding CSV, as work in progress with W3C http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/csv#w3c_all ?
> 
> Also, W3C Data Cubes/ISO17369 is a possibility, but no explicit geo aspects.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clemens Portele [mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:13 PM
> To: SDW WG Public List
> Subject: Re: ACTION-98: Look at a list/matrix of the common formats (geojson, gml, rdf, json-ld) and what you can or can't achieve with it
> 
> I have uploaded it to Google docs. Try this link: 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V2A-SLMZli20ybN9e30ANyFBNdapB6UyVQnjN5eeqos/edit?usp=sharing

> 
> Best regards,
> Clemens
> 
> 
>> On 25 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Looking at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Nov/0052.html the table structure seems to be lost after the email is processed by the list software, so I will make the table available somewhere and send a link.
>> 
>> Clemens
>> 
>> 
>>> On 25 Nov 2015, at 13:57, Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> below is a first attempt at such a matrix for vector data only.
>>> 
>>> Beside a review (I am not sure that everything is correct or 
>>> adequate) this would need
>>> - additional explanations in text,
>>> - more work to align the terminology with the rest of the BP to make 
>>> it understandable for the different target audiences,
>>> - links to the specification for each format.
>>> 
>>> But before we work on this, I think we should have a discussion 
>>> whether
>>> - this is what we were looking for in general,
>>> - the list of aspects is complete, too much, or missing important 
>>> aspects (e.g. time support, closely coupled APIs / service 
>>> interfaces, etc),
>>> - the list of formats is ok or whether we need to remove / add some.
>>> 
>>> I hope the table is still readable once it passes the W3C list 
>>> software :) … Best regards, Clemens
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 14:00:37 UTC