incorrect syntax for spatialCoverage in JSON-LD shared in this repo

[jmckenna]

• see emodnet-biology_2194.jsonld (but problem exists in all of the JSON-LD in this repo)
• snippet:

    "spatialCoverage":
  [
      {
          "http://purl.org/dc/terms/type": "Morlaix Bay" , 
          "http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf": "http://www.marineregions.org/mrgid/5216" , 
          "@type": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location"
      },
      {
          "http://purl.org/dc/terms/type": "EurOBIS calculated BBOX" ,
          "http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#bbox":"POLYGON(( -3.8805556 48.8027778 , -3.8805556 48.8027778 , -3.8805556 48.8027778 , -3.8805556 48.8027778 , -3.8805556 48.8027778 ))" , 
          "@type": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location"
      }
  ],

• causes many errors in the schema.org validator
• instead, spatialCoverage with GeoShape is more common and widely used, such as here

  "spatialCoverage": {
      "@type": "Place",
      "geo": {
          "@type": "GeoShape",
          "description": "schema.org expects lat long (Y X) coordinate order",
          "polygon": "10.161667 142.014,18.033833 142.014,18.033833 147.997833,10.161667 147.997833,10.161667 142.014"
      },
      "additionalProperty": {
          "@type": "PropertyValue",
          "propertyID": "https://dbpedia.org/page/Spatial_reference_system",
          "value": "https://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos"
      }
  },

• GeoShape Box (bounding box) is also very efficient and popular now (works well with ODIS) such as:

    "spatialCoverage": {
      "@type": "Place",
      "geo": {
          "@type": "GeoShape",
          "description": "schema.org expects lat long (Y X) coordinate order",
          "box": "-25.466215133666992 43.318023681640625 -12.043371200561523 57.779964447021484"
      }
  },

@pbuttigieg maybe you can assist me here, to fully replace the initial snippet above, with acceptable properties

[pbuttigieg]

Thanks @jmckenna

Indeed, the first snippet is an odd hybrid of properties and semantics that shortcuts a little too much

GeoJSON conventions are more FAIR and useful globally, schema.org as a second choice

[pieterprovoost]

Does OIH support geosparql:hasGeometry with geosparql:asWKT for complex geometries (multipolygons), or am I expected to split them up into individual GeoShapes? As far as I know GeoShape does not allow adding holes, which is a significant limitation.