Publish GeoJSON-LD 1.0

[sgillies]

Minus temporal considerations!

Temporal context and vocab terms are forthcoming.

Checklist

• [x] Remove temporal terms from the vocab pending approval
• [x] Copy vocab and context to geojson.github.io
• [x] Register and configure a purl.org domain for indentifiers (#43)
• [x] Change example.com URIs in vocab and context to purl.org URIs
• [x] Announce

[ekansa]

So I'm "bumping" this. Whatever that means. :)

[sgillies]

This is blocked by my lack of time to finish the Leaflet plugin (https://github.com/geojson/geojson-ld/issues/8). Question: power through that (I don't have time right now) or remove it from the checklist and continue? Running code is important, so I'm very hesitant to proceed without it.

@ekansa you've spoken to me before about putting a developer on a Leaflet plugin. Is that still possible?

[erictheise]

@sgillies, I'd be happy to work on the Leaflet plugin. Would make a lot of sense given the talk I've proposed for SotM US, though my concerns there are temporal.

[sgillies]

@erictheise Great! You want to try to pick up my pieces or start fresh? Up to you.

[erictheise]

How about I decide after I look at the pieces, @sgillies?

[ekansa]

@erictheise please! That would be fantastic!

[akuckartz]

Ping!

Any news?

[sgillies]

@pietercolpaert what would you think about striking the Leaflet plugin off the list above and helping me with some examples? Maybe this thing can be shipped after all!

[ajturner]

:raised_hand: I would be interested in helping too. At first the how to would be useful then maybe clearer for others to write implementations.

Js.geo would be a good venue to have this ready to 'announce'

[pietercolpaert]

@sgillies I'm afraid I'm a bit over-committed at this moment and can't make any promises. If nothing has moved fwd in the next months, I'll take a look at it in October.

[sgillies]

@ajturner excellent. I've removed the Leaflet plugin from the list at the top of this issue.

[tstone]

Is this project still underway? I am interested in using the ld.geojson.org vocabulary.

[sthagen]

Yes it is (@sgillies correct me if I am wrong) - but we are currently having GeoJSON RFC last call (exciting 👍 ), started work on GeoJSON Text Sequences, ... but we will continue to tackle the "linking" task. Maybe I can help more also with this, but at the moment do not want to risk over commitment ...

[sgillies]

The project is overdue and it's time to wrap it up. I propose to complete the work by publishing the GeoJSON-LD and base context as-is, note the outstanding issue with GeoJSON coordinates, and call it "1.0." Please see http://geojson.org/geojson-ld for a preview of the 1.0 document.

If this is unsatisfactory, I'm also open to closing this project unfinished and letting another working group take up the work of defining a context and patching JSON-LD parsers so that they can handle nested GeoJSON coordinates.

[azaroth42]

:+1: for moving forwards, and thank you for the hard work!

Also thank you for the id/@id, type/@type mapping. It's great to see this pattern being adopted.

[akuckartz]

@sgillies We all are unhappy with the issue of JSON-LD regarding coordinates. I am pretty certain that a revived JSON-LD WG would seriously attempt to resolve it.

[sgillies]

Request for comments posted: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2017Jan/0001.html. Unless anyone finds a show stopper in the next week, I'll ship this on January 9.

[sgillies]

Received comments and a 👍 from Gregg Kellogg. I've pushed a new date-tagged version to http://geojson.org/geojson-ld/.

[ekansa]

Thanks Sean. I did some experiments using the new GeoJSON-LD contexts. Yes, the coordinates issue is super annoying. Hoping @akuckartz is right about getting solutions from the JSON-LD folks now that GeoJSON-LD adds some more motivating force.