[Geojson] Inclusion in OData

[Carl Smyth]

It seems like your first option has been rejected (or at least not endorsed by the GeoJson community) and the second (which looks like it has two sub-options)  doesn't have any way of maintaining a normative relationship to GeoJson - neither that OData defines GeoJson nor that GeoJson defines OData's use of a particular Json "schema".

Another option that might work using an OGC SWG structure would be to


1.       Call the OGC specification something like "Simple Features for Json" (SFJ)

2.       Make an informative reference to a specifc GeoJson specification

3.       In a normative section specify exactly the [Geo]Json that you want to use in OData (i.e. an "instantiation" of the informative reference in 2.)

4.       Include conformance classes that require that SFJ behave the same as any published GeoJson examples - again explicity restating each example and the expected behavior.

This would produce something that would be directly tied to a specific GeoJson specification (through step 3.) and also be a proxy for GeoJson to which you could make a normative reference.

...steve

From: geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org [mailto:geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org] On Behalf Of Arlo Belshee
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 6:19 PM
To: geojson at lists.geojson.org
Subject: [Geojson] Inclusion in OData

As I mentioned a while back, we're using GeoJson to format the geospatial primitives in OData V3. A new wrinkle has arisen; I'm looking for input.

We are strongly considering taking OData to a standards body. If OData goes through standardization, then it will only be able to take normative references on other standardized formats. So we can't include GeoJson by reference, as it currently is defined.

I'm trying to figure out how to reference GeoJson. In the end, one of the most important considerations is the preference of this community.

I see the following options.


*         GeoJson goes through official standardization, and then OData references it.

*         OData copies in the parts of GeoJson that we use (the representations for the spatial types, but not the features or rest of the doc), then modifies as necessary.

o   We state this to be GeoJson.

o   We do not state this to be GeoJson, and have explicit permission from you all to do so.

Does anyone see any more? Does anyone have any preferences between options?

I've been happy with our choice of GeoJson so far. I appreciate any guidance you can give on how best to link to it from an official standard. Thanks.

Arlo Belshee
Sr. Program Manager, OData, Microsoft

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20111104/36ab28e6/attachment-0005.htm>