Subject: [dispatch] Starting the GeoJSON working group

From: Sean Gillies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:42:40 -0700

Dear all,

May I move that we start the GeoJSON WG using the charter below?

(Also forwarded to the geopriv list and to the original, not-IETF, geosjon
list)

Proposed GeoJSON WG Charter
===========================

GeoJSON
-------

GeoJSON is a format for encoding data about geographic features using
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159]. Geographic features need
not be physical things; any thing with properties that are bounded in
space may be considered a feature. GeoJSON provides a means of
representing both the properties and spatial extent of features.

The GeoJSON format specification was published at http://geojson.org in
2008. GeoJSON today plays an important and growing role in many spatial
databases, web APIs, and open data platforms. Consequently the
implementers increasingly demand formal standardization, improvements in
the specification, guidance on extensibility, and the means to utilize
larger GeoJSON datasets.

This WG will work on a GeoJSON Format RFC that specifies the format more
precisely, serves as a better guide for implementers, and improves
extensibility of the format. The work will start from an Internet-Draft
written by the original GeoJSON authors: draft-butler-geojson [1].

This WG will work on GeoJSON mappings of 'geo' URIs, reinforcing the use
of RFC 5870.

This WG will work on a format for a streamable sequence of GeoJSON texts
based on RFC 7464 to address the difficulties in serializing very large
sequences of features or feature sequences of indeterminate length.

GeoJSON objects represent geographic features only and do not specify
associations between geographic features and particular devices, users,
or facilities. Any association with a particular device, user, or
facility requires another protocol. As such, a GeoJSON object does not
fit the "Location Information" definition according to Section 5.2 of
RFC 3693, because there is not necessarily a "Device" involved. Because
there is also no way to specify the identity of a "Target" within the
confines of a GeoJSON object, it also does not fit the specification of
a "Location Object" (Section 5.2 of RFC 3693, Section 3.2 of RFC 6280).
When a GeoJSON object is used in a context where it identifies the
location of a Target, it becomes subject to the architectural, security,
and privacy considerations in RFC 6280. The application of those
considerations is specific to protocols that make use of GeoJSON objects
and is out of scope for the GeoJSON WG.

Deliverables:

* A GeoJSON format specification document including mappings of 'geo'
  URIs
* A document describing a format for a streamable sequence of GeoJSON
  texts

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-butler-geojson

--
Sean Gillies

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:36:58 -0500

Since I ate some mic-line time at the DISPATCH meeting:

I don't object to this charter.

I reiterate that (if I understand the proposal correctly), these
could be used as part of a location object, or could become
a location object through extension.

I suggest that you  consider adding text to the charter to ask
that the group consider its extension points carefully (in general
since you note that the user community is asking for guidance on
extensibility), and not _preclude_ extensions that would allow this
to become a location object unless the group determines such
extensibility would be harmful.

RjS

On 8/7/15 4:42 PM, Sean Gillies wrote:
> (Also forwarded to the geopriv list and to the original, not-IETF, 
> geosjon list)
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:42:01 -0700

> extensibility would be harmful. 

Thanks. I added a sentence to the last paragraph to capture this. <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-geojson/>

In the absence of other comments I’ve put this charter on the September 3 IESG telechat for approval for external review.

Alissa

>> (Also forwarded to the geopriv list and to the original, not-IETF, geosjon list)
>>