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

Re: Content negotiation of spatial linked data

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:40:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz42-DT064Zv-_Z99dTyHJVa6WnRgN4q6pcXV5aGcogUFrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello Josh, all,

Aren't geometry serializations relics of the past, when domain standards
were used to exchange spatial data? What if there is agreement on a simple
datatype for an array of coordinates? Then we could use content negotiation
for the entire document/dataset, not for a part of it.

I think a basic problem with serializations like GeoJSON, KML and GML is
that they are geography-centric constructs. In reality, spatialness is just
one aspect of reality, and geometry, like time, is just one of the things
you can encounter in a dataset.

It seems to me that an commonly agreed datatype for geometry should be our
holy grail. Then we could use that in XML, JSON, CSV, HTML, or whatever
format happens to be in fashion.


On 20 July 2016 at 17:54, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>

> 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.
> —Josh
Received on Friday, 23 September 2016 14:40:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:26 UTC