Hello everybody, First of all, thank you for interesting presentations in Orlando, I hope weather was bit warmer than here in Finland where I was doomed to watch them.
I'm not sure how much discussion you've had on the method used to describe location in this draft. So I apologize in advance if this issue is closed. This draft of PAWS protocol uses JSON syntax, but RFC5491, which is used to describe location is XML based protocol. This causes a problem for us implementers, because this hybrid loses unambiguity i.e. I cannot verify the location entries against json-schema because it doesn't exist. As an alternative I think something like following would be useful as a replacement or an alternative. Most implementations of geospatial databases understand ISO/IEC 13249-3:2011 WKT and BKT format for geometric representations and there are a lot of ready made code to handle it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_text#Well-known_binary so instead of "location": { "point": { "center": {"latitude": 37.0005, "longitude": -101.3005} } } one could enter "location": { "wkt": "POINT (101.3005 37.0005)", "srid":4326 } or WKB equivalent. Just a note: (srid 4326 is the id for WGS84) Advantage of this is that since WKT and WKB are understood by most geospatial databases there is very little parsing to do, validation is trivial and as a bonus it can be directly entered as a part of a query. Protocol covers other geometric shapes. It doesn't cover ellipse though, but then again it's not very common feature in geospatial databases and ellipses need to be converted into polygons anyway to make geospatial queries. Cheers, Kalle Kuismanen Fairspectrum
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
