Currently the various CityObject types are simply listed in the specs. While it is fairly straightforward what real world object should be modelled as Building or Tunnel, it can be somewhat ambiguous in case of the 2nd-level CO-s.
The CityGML conceptual model contains a one-liner Class definition for each of these objects, eg. Table 66.
Right now the CityJSON specs assume that the reader is familiar with these CityGML class definitions or at least knows how to look them up. However, I think it would be better if the CityJSON specs are self-contained, or at least contain the links to the relevant section in the CityGML conceptual model.
Personally, I wouldn't use the term definition for these CityObject explanations, because it is too restrictive and undoubtedly some things will be missed. The description of OtherConstruction is fine I think, and it would be good to see similar explanations for the rest of the CO types.
Currently the various CityObject types are simply listed in the specs. While it is fairly straightforward what real world object should be modelled as
Building
orTunnel
, it can be somewhat ambiguous in case of the 2nd-level CO-s.The CityGML conceptual model contains a one-liner Class definition for each of these objects, eg. Table 66.
Right now the CityJSON specs assume that the reader is familiar with these CityGML class definitions or at least knows how to look them up. However, I think it would be better if the CityJSON specs are self-contained, or at least contain the links to the relevant section in the CityGML conceptual model.
Personally, I wouldn't use the term definition for these CityObject explanations, because it is too restrictive and undoubtedly some things will be missed. The description of OtherConstruction is fine I think, and it would be good to see similar explanations for the rest of the CO types.