[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[Stefan Drees]

On 26.04.13 14:34, christopher.schmidt at nokia.com wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 8:19 AM, ext Stefan Drees wrote:
>
> > ... 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.

Thanks a lot for reacting so fast.

I'd value the benefits from performing the suggested submission step 
more from this perspective:
	Do something good, and talk about it. (so as to spread it).

We exchange these mails guarded by mime types and through 
application/transport protocols all being invented by individuals and 
groups in open community efforts and published as RFCs by IETF 
establishing a dialog with the internet community. Such a dialog needs 
both sides to persist.

So IMO the community at large would benefit, the rfc repository would be 
enriched and standardization - as a real open to individuals process - 
be also enforced.

I already consider these benefits as substantial and personally try to 
avoid judging significance, as we internet citizens tend to follow 
diverging interests and needs.

As GeoJSON is so close to individual submission as it a) has been 
publicly accesible since 2008, and b) in the current RFC format is 
already close to submittable, and is c) in widespread use, why not take 
this final small step?


>> 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.

Evidence is a rare beast in that arena I presume. I for one prefer that 
all free and open tools - as well as vendor products - do use the 
combination of a) best and most accesible, and b) vivid and at the same 
time reliable (meaning here stable) specifications and procedures 
available to offer interoperable services.

I further imagine, that you simply don't see formal standards out in the 
wild clearly referencing GeoJSON, as you can't (to my knowledge) cite a 
master thesis as normative reference in a ph.d. thesis (just trying to 
provide an analogy, not saying anything about the quality of geojson!).

By the way, one could easily state geojson.org as afiliation (as has 
been done with json.org in the JSON RFC by Mr. Crockford) to document 
the real origin of the work.


But again what strikes me most, is the perceived mismatch between the 
potential (above described) benefits on one side and the small steps 
that would be needed to achieve them on the other side.

>...

All the bets,
Stefan.