- From: Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:01:13 +0000
- To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- CC: "phila@w3.org" <phila@w3.org>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> WKT makes sense in OWL/RDF, but not JSON. So our best practice must draw attention to this +1. And I think there’s a more general “best practice” comment, which is to be idiomatic in each of the encodings/serialisations that we might target. “Naive” conversions between encodings can generate very odd artefacts. > On 10 Feb 2016, at 00:25, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > >> 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 Wednesday, 10 February 2016 08:01:50 UTC