asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: json vs. JSON
Date Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:45:29 GMT
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Chris Hillery <chillery@hillery.land>
wrote:

> After considering the various things that have been discussed, I've gotta
> be honest: I still like my original proposal the best. It's a concise but
> usable consolidation of the data represented in ADM, which best I can tell
> is what we're looking to implement.
>
>   "location2d" : [41.0, 44.0],
>   "location3d" : [44.0, 13.0, 41.0],
>   "line" : [ [10.1, 11.1], [10.2, 11.2] ],
>   "rectangle" : [ [5.1, 11.8], [87.6, 15.6548] ],
>   "polygon" : [ [1.2, 1.3], [2.1, 2.5], [3.5, 3.6], [4.6, 4.8] ],
>   "circle" : { "radius" : 10.1, "center" : [ 11.1, 10.2 ] },
>
> I'm not entirely happy that circle gets rendered as as an object; something
> like  "circle": [ [11.1, 10.2], 10.1 ] could work too. Or, if necessary,
> all shapes (not points) could be rendered as objects as per my secondary
> proposal.
>

Chris,

Isn't this pretty similar to GeoJSON?

I only looked at that spec for an hour or so, but it seems quite similar.
The differences that I see are

1) geoJSON tends to package geometry up so that you can combine primitives

2) there is an extra level of objectness so that you can store attributes.

The home page example that they give is useful here:

{
  "type": "Feature",
  "geometry": {
    "type": "Point",
    "coordinates": [125.6, 10.1]
  },
  "properties": {
    "name": "Dinagat Islands"
  }
}

A feature here has geometry and (non-geometrical) properties. The geometry
element could be a complex combination of shapes and could have coordinate
system information as well.

Aren't all of these pretty important for this?

Send me packing if I am completely off base.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message