[Geojson] "Application schema" for GeoJSON?

[Carl Smyth]

Hi Richard,

My $0.02:

1. *Adding* this to GeoJSON this seems like inappropriately complicating
a simple and complete set of basic geometry objects.

2. I think your best bet is to develop a new schema with exactly the
content of your chosen XML application schema but expressed in JSON,
using the same definitions as GeoJSON whenever you can.

In other words, make a new doc but adopt what you can. If you can factor
out the pure GeoJSON parts (i.e. use them as pre-defined primitives) you
might be able to make your spec compact and easy to understand. On the
other hand, the parallelism with the XML version might be harder to see.

Good luck!

...steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org
[mailto:geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 5:43 PM
To: geojson at lists.geojson.org
Subject: [Geojson] "Application schema" for GeoJSON?

Hi all,

First, since I'm new to the list, I'm Richard Barnes.  I've been working

in the IETF GEOPRIV working group [1] for a while, but I just found out 
about GeoJSON, and had a quick question.

A lot of applications need slightly more advanced geometries than the 
point aggregates that are currently in GeoJSON.  For example, the 
current draft W3C Geolocation API [2] essentially describes a point with

horizontal and vertical uncertainty radii, i.e., (essentially) an 
ellipsoid.  At the same time, these applications don't need the full 
expressiveness of full GML.  The typical way to deal with this situation

seems to be to define application schemas that profile GML, for example 
the PIDF-LO application schema we use in GEOPRIV [3].

So what I was wondering if it might be worthwhile to port one of these 
application schemas over to GeoJSON, i.e., to translate the XML fields 
over to JSON.  This could be done either within the main GeoJSON spec, 
or as a separate extension document.  For the purpose of discussion, 
I've made an extended version of the current spec that supports the 
PIDF-LO application schema [4].  (FWIW, I think this would more or less 
meet the needs of the W3C group.)

Would this be worth doing?  Current document or a new one?

Thanks,
--Richard


[1] <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/>
[3] <http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/215>
[4] <http://geopriv.dreamhosters.com/geojson/geojson-spec.html>
_______________________________________________
Geojson mailing list
Geojson at lists.geojson.org
http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org