Question: Why Geometry contains only the exact type(Point, Polygon, MultiPolygon), but not the full GeoJson format?

[zhluktenko]

Is there any plan to support the full GeoJson format with full functionality, like features and properties?

{
  "type": "FeatureCollection",
  "features": [
    {
      "type": "Feature",
      "properties": {
        "property1" : "example"
      },
      "geometry": {
        "coordinates": [
          [
            [
              23.893064514520972,
              49.87302108530585
            ],
            [
              23.90847543737766,
              49.818812715521716
            ],
            [
              24.02198306743483,
              49.844113866609604
            ],
            [
              23.893064514520972,
              49.87302108530585
            ]
          ]
        ],
        "type": "Polygon"
      }
    }
  ]
}

[cbupp]

Discussed in the REC Technical Committee on 6/13/24

Our current geometry implementation mostly focused on moving away from a "geometry" property inside of the Space model, to move it into a slightly more informative Geometry model that provided a way to give more discrete models with inheritance.

With the evolution of DTDL to DTDLv3, the sniff test makes me think we can now better represent GeoJSON using DTDLv3 primitives: https://github.com/Azure/opendigitaltwins-dtdl/blob/236dcdde047bbce5da2a14e7200be7d9245385a9/DTDL/v3/DTDL.v3.md#geospatial-schemas

I'll think through an ODR to drive a conversation about how we might implement this.