<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV>I’ll be the first to admit that the Data Series proposal is not fully
baked. It was my attempt to simplify a specific but fairly widespread use case.
Representing a series of data that is associated with a single feature is
excessively onerous and there is not an accepted standardized way to do that in
the current GeoJSON spec.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I was hoping that there would be some discussion of this proposal by those
with the most interest in seeing this problem solved. However if the community
feels that this is too specific to write into the general GeoJSON spec, then
maybe I could write up a separate specification that would be an “official”
extension. Maybe something like an Data Series extension to the more general
spec would be more acceptable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As to the reason the Data Series would be a privileged object and not in
the normal properties, that made more sense to me since the data series would
likely be tied to a specific feature with its own specific properties that would
apply to all the collected data. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Two things that are most obviously lacking from the data series proposal
are</DIV>
<DIV>1. Multi-dimensional series</DIV>
<DIV>2. Metadata about the observations (measurement units, full name / label of
data property, etc...)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt Priour</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=sean.gillies@gmail.com
href="mailto:sean.gillies@gmail.com">Sean Gillies</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 31, 2011 12:27 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=geojson@lists.geojson.org
href="mailto:geojson@lists.geojson.org">geojson@lists.geojson.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Geojson] Toward consensus on proposals</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Hi
all,<BR><BR>We've got two proposals for changes to the spec and one that may
be<BR>arriving (Andrew?), so it shouldn't take long to decide whether
to<BR>accept them or not.<BR><BR>Circles and
Ellipses:<BR>https://github.com/GeoJSONWG/geojson-spec/wiki/wiki/Proposal%20Circles%20and%20Ellipses%20Geoms<BR><BR>Let's
be clear whether we're specifying paths or patches. Center<BR>coordinates +
radius feels natural to me. If a CRS is defined,<BR>wouldn't it be best to apply
those units to the radius? Otherwise,<BR>could we require units to always (MUST)
be meters?<BR><BR>An ellipse is complicated by the two axes and their
orientation.<BR>Defining these differently than GML does would need a strong
argument.<BR><BR>Circles and ellipses can be approximated by polygons, but it
becomes<BR>onerous for good approximations. I'm in favor of this
proposal.<BR><BR>Data Series
Proposal:<BR>https://github.com/GeoJSONWG/geojson-spec/wiki/Data-Series-Proposal<BR><BR>I'm
concerned about adding something so specialized to the spec and<BR>also wonder
why a data series object needs to be privileged instead of<BR>simply going in
the properties object.<BR><BR>Let's discuss. I'll split the subject in two as
soon as it seems needed.<BR><BR>-- <BR>Sean
Gillies<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Geojson mailing
list<BR>Geojson@lists.geojson.org<BR>http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>