Annex Update for GeoJSON #2089
Closed
Annex Update for GeoJSON #2089
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #2019.
Now that
navPlaceis released, people should use this property to supply GeoJSON instead of using service objects. There are Linked Data complications with the service object approach, and navPlace provides a IIIF-safe environment for GeoJSON values that handles these complications. Since it can be used with any IIIF Resource Type and can be embedded (and therefore still link to a service), it eliminates the need for the service. Though still possible, it is very much not recommended. This PR proposes to make the Service Table in Section 3 say that GeoJSON is not allowed, and section 3.2 now explains why and links out to navPlace.There are other options, like just removing GeoJSON from the table and deleting 3.2, since people will most likely be routed to the navPlace extension when searching "IIIF and GeoJSON". This PR opens the discussion by starting with the least destructive approach. It will remain in draft until we come to a consensus.