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

[Bernard Snyers]

In my understanding which is heavily influenced by the real needs of our 
customers is that we should have a reasonable feature model. That's what 
I tried to propose in my previous document.
The simple feature model is not enough, our customers need feature, 
feature collection properties and they use it now (that's why we have 
developed this encoding) ..
A geometry model has also been propose based on the OGC WKT 
specification. We could restrict the allowed types of geometry but in 
any case the geometry property should be self encoding, do not mention 
the srs property elsewhere.

Note: in case of you didn't notice the proposed encoding can produce 
completely standalone documents (featurecollection + types definitions) 
which can be transmitted to a processing chain without references to any 
servers. This is not the case in GML where a GML document always carries 
references through schemalocation attribute



Martin Daly wrote:
> 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.
>
> or
>
> 2. Encode OGC Simple Features in JSON, learning from, but not
> translating, GML.
>
> I'm in favour of 2.
>
> Any other opinions, or options?
>
> M
> _______________________________________________
> geojson mailing list
> geojson at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>