Symbology in GeoJSON Implementing JSON GeoJSON in an OGC Standard Engineering Report
22
Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium.
describe clearly support for either JSON or GeoJSON even if it provides some recommendations. The most concrete example of standard candidate using JSON or
GeoJSON is:
OGC 14-055, OWS Context GeoJSON Encoding Standard. Submitted to Pending August 2014.
https:portal.opengeospatial.orgfiles?artifact_id=59982version=1 o This candidate standard extends GeoJSON to include the elements coming
from the OWS Context conceptual model. “The goal of this standard is to provide a definition of how to encode a context document, which can be
extended to allow a context referencing a fully configured service set, which can be defined and consistently interpreted by clients”.
Works in previous testbeds is mentioned throughout this document: OGC 14-009r2, Testbed-10 Rules for JSON and GeoJSON Adoption: Focus on OWS-Context March
2014 and OWS 12-093 UGAS Conversion Engineering Report
Some other document part of the OGC process has been uploaded to the OGC systems: [OWS Common] Define XML and JSON schema for a web linking structure
based on RFC 5988 Change Request XACML 3.0 JSON Profile Presentation
6 Deriving a JSON encoding from XML and UML
JSON may be an alternative to XML, providing better integration with other standards making OGC standard implementation more accessible. Even if JSON does not provide
useful technologies such as XSLT or namespaces, the possibility of including JSON-LD in the JSON encodings opens a door for fully integrating two ways of describing entities:
objectfeatures and RDFsemantics in a single encoding.