[GeoJSON] Aligning implementations
noreply at geocartic.com
Tue Apr 10 11:07:49 PDT 2007
Chris Holmes wrote:
>> You got me curious about all these people who want to serve up
>> geographic features with no geometry. I wonder if you just mean null
>> or broken geometry - or if there really is a world where people deal
>> in geography without geometry.
> I mostly mean null or broken geometries. But I've also got people who
> are using a WFS to expose their data. They may have a bunch of tables,
> say a bunch of samples of rocks and the time they were taken, that are
> linked to a specific location. They do a join on the data and present
> the result, each location has zero or more data samples. Now presenting
> this obviously has a location, and can go through WMS and WFS.
> So they've already exposed their data. But if they want to just expose
> their data samples table, then it's easy as pie if they've already got a
> WFS configured for their other data. They just turn it on, and it's
> able to spit out XML, and if we do this, then JSON as well, through the
> WFS protocol. And indeed eventually I may even try for a more RESTful
> feature service that exposes GeoJSON. If organizations have it set up
> for their geospatial data, then they can easily turn it on for other
> data. I think it's great if WMS/WFS is the way in to organizations
> exposing their data to the web. And yes, I realize that it then won't
> be GeoJSON, and then we just wouldn't include a geometry. But if you
> have an application that doesn't necessarily use the geospatial part of
> the geojson data it's working against then it could benefit from this.
Sure, I think encouraging people to use JSON and XML to serve
non-spatial data is a good idea.
More information about the geojson