[GeoJSON] Three threads coming together

Karl Grossner karlg at stanford.edu
Sat Jun 7 19:41:53 PDT 2014


Jeff,

I share your frustration; I find that in the context of standards like GeoJSON and now GeoJSON-LD, the cases I want to address are invariably considered 'edge.' In general I think the symmetry between 'where' and 'when' (e.g. Multi-*) is compelling and lends usability. But that view has not won the day, so I retreat and resume work soon from the other direction on a 'PeriodCollection' model (Topotime), with some accounting for "where."

Overall the introduction of "when" for 'event-like features' is to me a nice step. Don't care for the "circa," but I'm weary of it. Maybe there needs to be a specialization of "when" for trajectory- or path-like features. I don't think MultiInstant alone can get you there in GeoJSON because it breaks the existing pattern; instead it suggests a "where/when" object; which is no longer recognizably GeoJSON.

I confess that standards are not my game even if models are. :^)

- Karl

----- Original Message -----
> Send GeoJSON mailing list submissions to
> 	geojson at lists.geojson.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	geojson-request at lists.geojson.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	geojson-owner at lists.geojson.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of GeoJSON digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Three threads coming together (Jeff Yutzler)
>    2. Re: Three threads coming together (Matt McClure)
>    3. Re: Three threads coming together (Pedro Gon?alves)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 23:33:01 -0400
> From: Jeff Yutzler <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com>
> To: geojson at lists.geojson.org
> Subject: [GeoJSON] Three threads coming together
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACuR0KsmHwT43kY4pVc77WohuxRH6rBA7g5QJjQ6Was84eEpDA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Three things GeoJSON-related have happened in the last 12 hours.
> 
> OWS Context
> OGC created a standard for Context files which describe a map view in its
> totality, including map layers (raster and/or vector) and extents. I think
> this would be a good thing for the web development community (among others)
> - instead of hard-coding layers in JavaScript (or being stuck with
> defaults) you could encode them in a Context file. I'm trying to convince
> the OGC participants that a) a JSON encoding could potentially be adopted
> by the web development community where a XML encoding has no chance in hell
> and b) if a JSON-encoded Context contains feature data, it should be
> provided as GeoJSON where possible because it is the least common
> denominator. Now in today's discussion they are second-guessing whether
> they want to have multiple encodings at all. I have no idea how this will
> turn out.
> 
> Moving Features
> OGC established a working group to create a standard for moving features.
> Publishing moving features on the web should be a no-brainer and in fact I
> demonstrated it about 8 years ago. It should be even easier today but no
> one has built it yet. As with Context, a JSON encoding has potential for
> the web development community that an XML encoding does not. They
> apparently decided that my ideas have merit and today they formally asked
> me to write a proposal for a JSON encoding to go along with their emerging
> XML encoding.
> 
> GeoJSON LD
> In anticipation of wanting to encode moving features in some form of JSON,
> I tried to work with this group to find a reasonable, reusable way ahead
> and have gotten nowhere. The final insult was when Mr. Gillies summarily
> closed my GeoJSON-LD ticket[1] without discussion. I was expecting
> cooperation and instead I feel I am being thwarted. Frankly, I don't get it.
> 
> I want to be a GeoJSON ally. I believe it is in GeoJSON, OGC, and my
> customer's best interest to establish some level of cooperation. (I know
> the history and I have been as frustrated by OGC as anyone over the last
> twelve years.) I am trying to build that bridge but I can't do it alone. I
> need someone on your side to step up and work with me.
> 
> Regards,
> Jeff
> 
> [1] https://github.com/geojson/geojson-ld/issues/15
> 
> --
> Jeff Yutzler
> Image Matters LLC
> Mobile: (703) 981-8753
> Office: (703) 428-6731
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20140604/2618934a/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:38:04 -0400
> From: Matt McClure <matthewlmcclure at gmail.com>
> To: Jeff Yutzler <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com>
> Cc: "geojson at lists.geojson.org" <geojson at lists.geojson.org>
> Subject: Re: [GeoJSON] Three threads coming together
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAJELnLH5smxkE2Y17=J9Z4KdOTPyRrv_n8q8c1A4OHB9tPoxcQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Just a word of support. I also would like to see a JSON moving features
> format that would gain critical mass. Regrettably I don't have much time to
> spend on the politics of it, but I hope you succeed.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Yutzler <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Three things GeoJSON-related have happened in the last 12 hours.
> >
> > OWS Context
> > OGC created a standard for Context files which describe a map view in its
> > totality, including map layers (raster and/or vector) and extents. I think
> > this would be a good thing for the web development community (among others)
> > - instead of hard-coding layers in JavaScript (or being stuck with
> > defaults) you could encode them in a Context file. I'm trying to convince
> > the OGC participants that a) a JSON encoding could potentially be adopted
> > by the web development community where a XML encoding has no chance in hell
> > and b) if a JSON-encoded Context contains feature data, it should be
> > provided as GeoJSON where possible because it is the least common
> > denominator. Now in today's discussion they are second-guessing whether
> > they want to have multiple encodings at all. I have no idea how this will
> > turn out.
> >
> > Moving Features
> > OGC established a working group to create a standard for moving features.
> > Publishing moving features on the web should be a no-brainer and in fact I
> > demonstrated it about 8 years ago. It should be even easier today but no
> > one has built it yet. As with Context, a JSON encoding has potential for
> > the web development community that an XML encoding does not. They
> > apparently decided that my ideas have merit and today they formally asked
> > me to write a proposal for a JSON encoding to go along with their emerging
> > XML encoding.
> >
> > GeoJSON LD
> > In anticipation of wanting to encode moving features in some form of JSON,
> > I tried to work with this group to find a reasonable, reusable way ahead
> > and have gotten nowhere. The final insult was when Mr. Gillies summarily
> > closed my GeoJSON-LD ticket[1] without discussion. I was expecting
> > cooperation and instead I feel I am being thwarted. Frankly, I don't get
> > it.
> >
> > I want to be a GeoJSON ally. I believe it is in GeoJSON, OGC, and my
> > customer's best interest to establish some level of cooperation. (I know
> > the history and I have been as frustrated by OGC as anyone over the last
> > twelve years.) I am trying to build that bridge but I can't do it alone. I
> > need someone on your side to step up and work with me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jeff
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/geojson/geojson-ld/issues/15
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Yutzler
> > Image Matters LLC
> > Mobile: (703) 981-8753
> > Office: (703) 428-6731
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GeoJSON mailing list
> > GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> > http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Matt McClure
> http://matthewlmcclure.com
> http://cens.io
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20140605/4d85f932/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:34:50 -0300
> From: Pedro Gon?alves <pereira.goncalves at gmail.com>
> To: Jeff Yutzler <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com>
> Cc: geojson at lists.geojson.org
> Subject: Re: [GeoJSON] Three threads coming together
> Message-ID: <AB1AA95B-E37E-4FE2-A90B-5EEDD01E3DB3 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Hi Jeff
> 
> No worries, I guess you are not alone trying to push GeoJSON further on OGC
> services
> 
> In the case of the OWS Context, the idea was to have a document where a view
> to a particular problem or scenario could be expressed.
> These documents list a series of resources by direct links or inline content.
> The resources can be any OGC services or any content defined by a MIME-type
> (URL or inline).
> For each resource the OWS Context defines core metadata (e.g. title, authors,
> geospatial and temporal domain)
> 
> Last years we worked on this at a conceptual model and then we applied it in
> an Atom feed encoding.
> This information is publicly available here
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/owc
> In particular the file :
> 	OGC OWS Context Atom Encoding Standard OGC 12-084r2
> 		https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=55183
> 
> The last months I've been working with OGC on the possibility to express OWS
> Context documents in a JSON or GeoJSON encoding.
> I delivered this assessment on engineering report available here
> 	OGC? OWS-10 Rules for JSON and GeoJSON Adoption: Focus on OWS-Context
> 		https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=57477
> 
> Based on the findings of that report, the OWS Context Standard Working Group
> decided to explore the definition of a new standard that defines the OWS
> Context on a GeoJSON encoding. I drafted the initial document and it is
> currently being reviewed by the members of that group.
> 
> Please let me know of any comments or requirements that you (and everyone on
> this list) might see useful to clarify or to add
> 
> cheers
> 
> Pedro
> 
> 
> Pedro Pereira Goncalves
> @terradue
> Roma, Italia | Oxford, UK
> http://www.terradue.com
> https://twitter.com/gp3dr0
> +44 18 65 60 06 07
> 
> 
> 
> On 05 Jun 2014, at 00:33, Jeff Yutzler <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com> wrote:
> 
> > Three things GeoJSON-related have happened in the last 12 hours.
> > 
> > OWS Context
> > OGC created a standard for Context files which describe a map view in its
> > totality, including map layers (raster and/or vector) and extents. I think
> > this would be a good thing for the web development community (among
> > others) - instead of hard-coding layers in JavaScript (or being stuck with
> > defaults) you could encode them in a Context file. I'm trying to convince
> > the OGC participants that a) a JSON encoding could potentially be adopted
> > by the web development community where a XML encoding has no chance in
> > hell and b) if a JSON-encoded Context contains feature data, it should be
> > provided as GeoJSON where possible because it is the least common
> > denominator. Now in today's discussion they are second-guessing whether
> > they want to have multiple encodings at all. I have no idea how this will
> > turn out.
> > 
> > Moving Features
> > OGC established a working group to create a standard for moving features.
> > Publishing moving features on the web should be a no-brainer and in fact I
> > demonstrated it about 8 years ago. It should be even easier today but no
> > one has built it yet. As with Context, a JSON encoding has potential for
> > the web development community that an XML encoding does not. They
> > apparently decided that my ideas have merit and today they formally asked
> > me to write a proposal for a JSON encoding to go along with their emerging
> > XML encoding.
> > 
> > GeoJSON LD
> > In anticipation of wanting to encode moving features in some form of JSON,
> > I tried to work with this group to find a reasonable, reusable way ahead
> > and have gotten nowhere. The final insult was when Mr. Gillies summarily
> > closed my GeoJSON-LD ticket[1] without discussion. I was expecting
> > cooperation and instead I feel I am being thwarted. Frankly, I don't get
> > it.
> > 
> > I want to be a GeoJSON ally. I believe it is in GeoJSON, OGC, and my
> > customer's best interest to establish some level of cooperation. (I know
> > the history and I have been as frustrated by OGC as anyone over the last
> > twelve years.) I am trying to build that bridge but I can't do it alone. I
> > need someone on your side to step up and work with me.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Jeff
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/geojson/geojson-ld/issues/15
> > 
> > --
> > Jeff Yutzler
> > Image Matters LLC
> > Mobile: (703) 981-8753
> > Office: (703) 428-6731
> > _______________________________________________
> > GeoJSON mailing list
> > GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> > http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GeoJSON mailing list
> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of GeoJSON Digest, Vol 66, Issue 1
> **************************************
> 



More information about the GeoJSON mailing list