[Geojson] "Application schema" for GeoJSON?

[Sean Gillies]

Welcome, Richard.

We never ruled out curves and volumes, and I'm interested. I'm a bit  
concerned about proliferation of circles: every real world point has  
fuzziness when you get right down to it, yes? And that feels to me to  
be something different than a circular geometry.

Cheers,
Sean

On May 11, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Carl Smyth wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Geojson mailing list
> Geojson at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org