W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > February 2018

Re: Introducing CityJSON

From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:01:18 +0100
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Cc: "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>, "Hugo Ledoux [h.ledoux@tudelft.nl]" <h.ledoux@tudelft.nl>
Message-ID: <16084990-525c-dc4b-58f3-13cff7d6a565@w3.org>
Le 02/02/2018 à 09:54, Linda van den Brink a écrit :
> Well yes, we are an interest group and cannot create standards; but one
> of our purposes is to identify areas where standards should be developed
> jointly by W3C and OGC. So a discussion on the best place to develop
> CityJSON as a standard (OGC, W3C or joint) would be at home here.

In particular, what could be interesting for the group to discuss is the 
scope of the work on CityJSON, with a view to assessing support for the 
idea and helping shape a possible draft charter of a group that could, 
in fine, standardize it. For instance, some questions I'd be interested 
to explore:

1. I get it that the format aims at being easy-to-use, but can this need 
be further motivated by listing practical usage examples that are way 
easier to achieve with CityJSON than they are with CityGML?
2. Can we help specify the scope? For instance, is the final goal to 
encode the entire CityGML data model? Or a subset of it (as currently 
seem to be the case), such as no support for Level of Details 4 (LoD4) 
features? If some of it is left out, can that create issues later on?
3. What about rendering? Is it easy and efficient to render a CityJSON 
document, e.g. using JS in a Web context, or if we envision a world with 
MapML support within browsers? Would changes to the structure help if 
not? Is that a non goal?
4. Can any CityGML doc be converted to a CityJSON doc? Do we lose 
information in the process? What are the required transformations that 
need to happen? (The current specification already describes some of that)

Francois.


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Van:* Ed Parsons [eparsons@google.com]
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 2 februari 2018 9:23
> *To:* Linda van den Brink
> *Cc:* public-sdwig@w3.org; Jeremy Tandy; Francois Daoust; Scott Simmons;
> Hugo Ledoux [h.ledoux@tudelft.nl]
> *Onderwerp:* Re: Introducing CityJSON
>
> Clearly interesting, although the development and standardisation of
> encoding would be outside the scope of the group ?
> There is clearly a common thread of moving away from pointy brackets
> (XML), perhaps there is something the group can do highlight common
> patterns in this process.
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 at 09:00 Linda van den Brink
> <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>> wrote:
>
>     Hi group,
>
>     At the end of last year I had a discussion with Hugo Ledoux of Delft
>     University. He and some others have created a spatial data format
>     called CityJSON and are looking for options to further develop and
>     possibly standardize this format.
>
>     CityJSON is an encoding of CityGML, an open standardised data model
>     and exchange format to store digital 3D models of cities and
>     landscapes. CityGML is implemented as an application schema for
>     GML3, and it is an official international standard of the OGC.
>
>     CityJSON is an alternative encoding in, you guessed it, JSON. The
>     aim of CityJSON is to offer an alternative to the GML encoding of
>     CityGML, which can be verbose and complex. CityJSON aims at being
>     easy-to-use, both for reading datasets, and for creating them. It
>     was designed with programmers in mind, so that tools and APIs
>     supporting it can be quickly built. It was also designed to be
>     compact, and friendly for web and mobile development. See
>     http://www.cityjson.org/ for more.
>
>     Because the SDWIG is all about web-, programmer-, and mobile
>     development friendly standards, I think CityJSON could be of
>     interest to this group.
>
>     Any thoughts, opinions?
>
>     Linda
>
> --
>
>
> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
> +44 7825 382263 @edparsons
> www.edparsons.com <http://www.edparsons.com/>
>
Received on Friday, 2 February 2018 11:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:46 UTC