[Geojson] Interesting comparison of JSON and RDF
Allan Doyle
adoyle at eogeo.org
Thu Jul 26 14:30:27 PDT 2007
On Jul 26, 2007, at 11:13 , Sean Gillies wrote:
> You may have read this already, else open it in a new tab and read it
> when you get a chance.
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/the_limitations_of_json
>
> I've never felt that GeoJSON should be put forward as a general
> purpose
> interchange format, and that's why I've resisted the RDF-isms of JDIL.
I agree that GeoJSON isn't targeted at being a general purpose
interchange format. However, I also cringe every time I read
something like that blog posting.
People keep thinking that if they only add a little more notation,
they will achieve semantic nirvana where there is no out-of-band
information needed and everything can just grok everything else.
Sure, adding namespaces like foaf: helps you along the way, but how
do people ever get anything done once they start indirecting
everything? It seems to me that the trend is towards late-binding so
that one doesn't have to commit immediately to nailing things down.
To truly achieve a semantic web, the binding may have to be
infinitely late. In the meantime, the early-binding constructs are
out there doing useful things.
I think GeoJSON as is, or maybe even with the feature e stuff pulled
out is a fine piece of work and we should not be lulled into thinking
that just one more little bit of notation won't be so bad.
Maybe it's because I started out life as a hardware designer. I feel
that when you're done, you should have something pretty self-
contained that just works, preferably in a deterministic way. Or
maybe I've ossified to the point where I just don't get it and the
young-uns will have to just move ahead without me.
Allan
>
> Sean
> _______________________________________________
> Geojson mailing list
> Geojson at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org
More information about the GeoJSON
mailing list