[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[christopher.schmidt at nokia.com]

On Apr 26, 2013, at 8:19 AM, ext Stefan Drees wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> first of all: thank you to those, that invested their time and work over the last years in providing the GeoJSON specification as it currently stands.
> 
> As I read from the current version [1] "The GeoJSON format specification is the product of discussion on the GeoJSON list" (Appendix B. Contributors) so I address my request to this list.
> 
> If there is any better or more apropriate means to approach the authors listed on the current version in the following regard I would love to be adviced.
> 
> As a "pythonista" I additionally appreciate the apparent spirit of that specification as coined by Howard Butler "GeoJSON is successful because it sticks to its core principles. Constraint over flexibility. Web over Geo/GIS. [...]" (citing his mail from Fri Apr 12 08:58:32 PDT 2013 and dcumented at [2]).
> 
> In my own daily work environment and with python I do use it occasionally in client projects and through the geojson package.
> 
> I also understand, that there is some "traction GeoJSON has gained in the market" (citing Howard Butler again at [2]) over the last years.
> 
> Are there any plans to further progress GeoJSON, that is to submit the specification in the version specified at [1] in Version 1.0 (16 June 2008) "in direction of a standards body" like say submitting it as RFC to IETF? It looks a lot like being written already in IETF RFC format ;-)

I don't think there is any significant benefit I can imagine from submitting
GeoJSON as IETF RFC.

> 
> This submission may be a lot of additional work, I confess, but at least IMO the gained  benefit over the years would be huge for the whole community, as GeoJSON then may be referenced normatively and thus be really used inside standards for the Web that need to de-/serialize geometric or geographic entities in an interoperable way.

I see no evidence that the reason this isn't being done is due to lack of 
IETF status.

-- Chris

> As of now, JSON itself may be normatively referenced via [3]. That is a real benefit for many. Although the RFC itself is placed only inside the Informational category and is not an "internet standard of any kind", simply mediated through the "trusted" hosting by ietf this alone already makes JSON a "first class citizen" for others to be referenced in a stable manner. Which avoids copying the needed content in every specification using JSON as format.
> 
> What do you think and where might help aiding in such a progression would be appreciated?
> I hereby offer my support in formal editing etc.
> 
> I imagine that GeoJSON already has come a long way towards individual rfc submission (as defined in [4]). I hereby kindly offer my help in going together the last steps needed.
> 
> Thanks a lot for spending time reading this message.
> 
> References:
> 
> [1]: http://geojson.org/geojson-spec.html
> [2]: http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2013-April/000707.html
> [3]: Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)”, RFC 4627, July 2006. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627.
> [4]: http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html
> 
> All the best,
> Stefan.
> _______________________________________________
> GeoJSON mailing list
> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org