[GeoJSON] GeoJSON Digest, Vol 64, Issue 4

[Karl Grossner]

I completely understand the 'it works, it's simple, let's not mess with it' impulse/policy. Core/extension seems perfectly viable.

> I would ask those clamoring for time
> support in GeoJSON to make a strong case about why it is in scope for
> GeoJSON. The problem of encoding time in JSON would seem to exist in a
> plethora of domains other than Geo. What makes it the mixing of time in
> GeoJSON compelling enough to place the burden of it on all implementors of
> GeoJSON?
> 

Geographic features such as 'Neolithic Levant' and 'Iron-age Britain' are as temporal as they are spatial. As are all other things in the world with spatial extension. GeoJSON ostensibly models geographic features and models their spatial extents directly and explicitly. In my view (not that of my inner ontologist) it is common-sensical that a model capture the essential qualities of a thing.

> My inner lazy ass would like to just point people at something that's already
> done, widely accepted, and frequently implemented and say "use that". Why
> can't that scenario be true today? Will it be true in some future tomorrow?
> 

As I note, a number of historical projects, including but not limited to global/federated/open gazetteers like Pelagios, are interested to model the temporal attributes of geographic features and finding no 'widely accepted, frequently implemented' means for doing that. Especially when it comes to the mushy temporal data they encounter. 

In beginning to develop Topotime, we find ourselves in the reverse position - temporal things that have spatial extension to be modeled. That's led me to GeoJSON, for all the positives that have been noted, and wonder how I can extend it to meet my use cases. I was keenly interested to get the views of its keepers, b/c whatever I do must relate well to GeoJSON imho. 

So I appreciate the responses; helps me plan my development path. The advent of LD and the GeoJSON-LD prospects should do the trick.
 
Karl