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

Re: Content negotiation of spatial linked data

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:44:59 +0200
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu>
Message-id: <2b262036-73be-b002-96d6-ba351253ba16@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
On 20/07/2016 17:54, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
> I’ve added a comment to the wiki about geometry serialization negotiation:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL#Negotiate_geometry_serializations
>
> It seems the best idea may be to define a content type parameter for the
> available / desired serialization, but that would presumably need to be
> added to a linked spatial data API best practice.

Thanks, Josh. I wonder whether this is another case where profile-based 
content negotiation can play a role.

On the other hand, there might be an alternative solution to deal with 
this issue, e.g., by using URIs for geometries. In such a case, you 
fetch the RDF, and then apply content negotiation on the geometry URI to 
get WKT, GML, KML, GeoJSON, etc. So, basically, you get to the geometry 
in two steps.

This relates to the WG discussion on "geometries as first-class 
citizens", and count some implementations - as those I outlined in an 
earlier email [1]. It may be worth assessing them wrt to the general 
issue of serving spatial (linked) data in multiple formats.

Cheers,

Andrea

----
[1]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016May/0099.html

>
> —Josh
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2016 16:45:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC