[GeoJSON] To GML, or not to GML, that is the question

John Herring john.herring at oracle.com
Wed Mar 28 05:42:34 PDT 2007


	I am always suspicious when we are in agreement, but here goes. 

	I would not want to chase GML down the rabbit hole, so I would avoid
#1, except to the extent that it would be nice if there were a GeoJSON
to/from GML translate, which means we have to encode what GML encodes, but
not that we need to do that as GML does. There are a lot of things in GML
that are the result of concerns about XML, XML Schema, xlink and RDF that do
not seem appropriate to a what is more of an object-marshalling technique. 

	On the other hand, Simple Features is still a bit limited. But it
does give us a good core that we could agree on. It also has a WKT that
would seem more closely related to what GeoJSON is doing that what GML is
doing (also case insensitive, like most of SQL). I'm all in favor of a
core-extension model for the standard, and starting with the current SF is a
sound approach. 

	Furthermore, ISO 19107 is up for its 5-year review, and there are
changes being made for dealing with CAD-GIS style stuff. So delaying further
inroads into geometry until we have a more mature draft of the new 19107 is
probably a good idea. 

	BTW, there is an error in the old 19107 wrt spline surfaces that was
not caught by GML, and so going full bore before the new draft of 19107 is
out may be counter-productive. There are also some CRS issues that are being
fixed. There is some information on this project to NWIP a new 19107 in the
Geometry WG files portal page.
Contributions and comments are welcome. 


You do what you can when you can because you can.

The opinions expressed in this email are 
purely my own and do not necessarily 
represent the opinions of any organization
or otherwise sane person or persons.

John R. Herring
Architect, Spatial Products
Oracle Corporation
One Oracle Drive
Nashua, New Hampshire 03062
ph: 1 603 897 3216
fx: 1 603 897 3334

Annue cœptis - Novus Ordo Seclorum

-----Original Message-----
From: geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org
[mailto:geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org] On Behalf Of Martin Daly
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:41 AM
To: geojson at lists.geojson.org
Subject: [GeoJSON] To GML, or not to GML, that is the question

We've had some skirting round this issue, but I think that before we get too
much further (with GeoJSON Features at least) we need to have a consensus on
what we are trying to achieve.

The options that I see are:

1. Encode GML in JSON, with a reasonably faithful translation between XML
and JSON.


2. Encode OGC Simple Features in JSON, learning from, but not translating,

I'm in favour of 2.

Any other opinions, or options?

geojson mailing list
geojson at lists.geojson.org

More information about the GeoJSON mailing list