[Geojson] Inclusion in OData

[Sean Gillies]

Yeah, that was me and my mouth. Until now we've never heard from anybody
that said GeoJSON had to be a "real standard" before they could use it, so
I've made myself put RFC writing aside. Even now, I'd like to hold off
until we finish revising (or not revising) the spec.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Martin Daly <Martin.Daly at cadcorp.com> wrote:

> There was some talk about submitting an IETF RFC, but it never happened. I
> believe that there would be more traction with the authors in that approach
> than the OGC one.****
>
> ** **
>
> I see no reason that we couldn't start that process, either with 1.0
> as-is, or with whatever 1.1 becomes.****
>
> ** **
>
> Martin****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org [mailto:
> geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org] *On Behalf Of *Arlo Belshee
> *Sent:* 04 November 2011 01:19
>
> *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****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
-- 
Sean Gillies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20111104/f03f54ea/attachment-0005.htm>