Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GeoJSON and OGC SensorML #112

Closed
Sam-Bolling opened this issue Dec 17, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #121
Closed

GeoJSON and OGC SensorML #112

Sam-Bolling opened this issue Dec 17, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #121
Assignees
Labels
ready Was discussed during a telecon and a decision was made

Comments

@Sam-Bolling
Copy link

This public comment is respectfully submitted by the Web Service Technical Panel (WSTP) of the Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG). This comment is specifically directed toward 23-000 OGC SENSORML ENCODING STANDARD. GeoJSON is not mentioned at all in this document. Given the significant relationship of GeoJSON with other current, relevant, and emerging OGC standards, it may prove valuable to clearly define the relationship of this standard with GeoJSON or explain the rationale for a lack thereof.

@alexrobin
Copy link
Collaborator

alexrobin commented Jan 9, 2025

Discussed during 01/09 telecon.

Will add GeoJSON to the list of Normative references.
Maybe also clarify somewhere that GeoJSON is an option for providing sensor position and deployment geometry.

Maybe add a note in the JSON encoding req class to say that a SensorML Process/System is NOT a GeoJSON feature because GeoJSON implementations don't deal well with complex nested structures.

@alexrobin alexrobin added the ready Was discussed during a telecon and a decision was made label Jan 9, 2025
@autermann autermann linked a pull request Jan 23, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready Was discussed during a telecon and a decision was made
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants