W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2016

GeoJSON and WKT - RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:25:57 +0000
To: <phila@w3.org>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A6035E1E5@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>    LarsG: is anyone in close contact with geojson community?
>
>    eparsons: nobody really     ... they are busy at IETF
>
>    phila: we had contact with them before Sapporo    ... we could ask eg if they are ok with WKT
>
>    LarsG: that would solve our problem what to write in the BP
>
>    billroberts: they would probably not want that

I'm monitoring their conversations, and had a lot of contact about a year ago. 
No-way they would consider dumping JSON arrays in favour of WKT - and frankly why should they? 
As pointed out in my mailings yesterday, JSON has arrays as a built-in, so if you are staying in the JSON world, why wouldn't you use them? 
They also take compatibility with existing GeoJSON in the wild as non-negotiable, and a change like this would be fundamental. 

>  BartvanLeeuwen: let's talk about Bergi's comments
>
>    GeoJSON and JSON-LD conflict in the way they are constructed.

The problem emerges if you want to move up into RDF, where arrays (particularly nested arrays) are not natural. 
WKT makes sense in OWL/RDF, but not JSON. So our best practice must draw attention to this, and caution about attempting lazy conversion from JSON to RDF simply by annotating JSON to create JSON-LD. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 1:57 AM
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2

Minutes from today's F2F meeting are, of course, at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/02/09-sdw-minutes.



Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 23:26:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:20 UTC