Geometry objects in non-feature(collection) documents

[joostfarla]

The current spec only allows embedding Geometry objects as part of a Feature or FeatureCollection document. I'm wondering if the standard should explicitly allow (or at least mention) using the Geometry object schema within another context.

Usage examples could be:

• Embedding geometry objects in arbitrary JSON-based documents, having their custom schema (not representing "features"). This is a common practice for (non-OAF) RESTful APIs and document formats such as JSON-LD.
• Storing geometry objects/properties in JSON-based databases.

The GeoJSON spec only standardizes the structure of a GeoJSON Object. It does not provide a definition for a GeoJSON Document or what objects may or may not be used on the root level of a document.

[cportele]

This is a good point. The focus of the document is in features and feature collections, but it was also the intent to allow using JSON-FG geometry objects in other contexts. However, currently a JSON document with a Polyhedron or Prism geometry is not a JSON-FG document and cannot have, for example, the JSON-FG media type.

I see two options:

• Minimal change/effort: Just discuss this and clarify that JSON-FG geometry objects can also be used in other contexts.
• Proper approach:
  • Use "JSON-FG objects" instead of "JSON-FG documents".
  • Include geometry objects in the list of "JSON-FG objects".
  • Add "conformsTo" to JSON-FG geometry objects.
  • Note that (like in GeoJSON), the JSON-FG media type would only apply to JSON documents where the root object is a JSON-FG object.

I prefer the second approach.

[cportele]

Meeting 2023-11-13: For now, we add a statement about this topic in the current document and reference this issue. The idea is to implement the "proper approach" after the Public Comment period and before the approval process.

[joostfarla]

@cportele Great, I would also prefer the second approach!