Dotted JSON namespaces

2010-01-18T09:28:34Z in standards, web, data

JSON quacks a lot like a Python dict, so then why not Python (or Java) style dotted namespaces? An arbitrary bit of JSON might be safely extended with GeoJSON geometry like:

{
  ...
  "org.geojson.type": "Point",
  "org.geojson.coordinates": [0.0, 0.0]
}

Or with a feature:

{
  ...
  "org.geojson.geometry": {
    "org.geojson.type": "Point",
    "org.geojson.coordinates": [0.0, 0.0]
  }
}

The GeoJSON working group rejected XML namespaces (such as in JDIL) for 1.0. I recall that I had the most strongly expressed opinion: that GeoJSON should be distinctly JSON and not XML without angle brackets. JSON is less abstracted than XML, closer to code, and dotted namespaces seem like a win to me.

Comments

1Re: Dotted JSON namespaces

Tom Kralidis, 2010-01-19T18:05:43Z

Wouldn't this result in a bulkier encoding? At least with JDIL, the URIs are defined once (at the top/header) and the prefixes are shorthand refs to them.

I do agree that your proposal above is closer to code.

2Re: Dotted JSON namespaces

Sean, 2010-01-20T09:50:55Z

A little bulkier, yes, but it's not going to add up to a lot of extra bytes relative to the accompanying coordinates. Flatter namespaces will certainly be easier on the eyes.

Comments are closed after 13 days.