Re: [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Events draft

[Sean Gillies <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

Thanks for the feedback. I've made sure that the draft uses start/end
(following the Activity Streams 2.0 spec and suggestions here) and explains
that the values are on the boundary of intervals. Version -01 of the draft
is now at
https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/draft-gillies-geojson-events.html.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Martin Daly <[e-mail]> wrote:

> You know me: I think that the “when” object belongs **inside** the
> “properties” object.
>
>
>
> If everyone did it like that then the implementations would (eventually,
> if they don’t already) support structure within the “properties” object,
> which, I think, is more interoperable than N new objects alongside
> “properties”.
>
>
>
> And, purely subjectively, I’d stick with start/end.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* GeoJSON [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Sean
> Gillies
> *Sent:* 04 January 2017 09:33
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Geojson] Requests for comments on GeoJSON Events draft
>
>
>
> Hi and Bonne Année all,
>
> With help from many of you, I've been working on a GeoJSON extension for
> event-like features
>
>     https://github.com/sgillies/geojson-events
>
> and have drafted a spec:
>
>
>     https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/draft-gillies-
> geojson-events.html
>     https://sgillies.github.io/geojson-events/
>
> It's pared down dramatically from what we discussed in the past. Fuzzy
> time periods are out and so are temporal bounding boxes because the use
> cases for these are rare. GeoJSON has been doing well so far without any
> representation of fuzzy geometry and I think the situation is about the
> same for time.
>
> I received an suggestion to consider ISO 8601 style time intervals. This
> would allow a single string value to represent an instant or interval,
>
>     "when": "2017-01-04/2017-01-05"
>
>
>
> instead of
>
>     "when": {"start": "2017-01-04", "stop": "2017-01-05"}
>
> but this seems harder to use because support for it in parsers is rare.
>
> I was asked about recurring intervals like "every other Friday," but I
> think this isn't necessary. GeoJSON doesn't have a concept of non-literal
> geometries either.
>
> Some time ago we arrived at rough consensus that "moving objects" and
> "event-like features" are either different things or very different models
> of the same things. Moving objects are not specified in my draft.
>
>
>
> I have two objectives for this draft:
>
> * To establish a common representation for time in GeoJSON that mappers of
> events, whether they are scientists or journalists or historians, can share.
>
> * To set an example for other extension projects.
>
> I'd love comments on how it can be improved to better meet those
> objectives. Thanks!
>
> --
>
> Sean Gillies
>


-- 
Sean Gillies