Hi Bryan,

The editors reviewed your recipe and are generally happy for it to go to the TRC but have asked for a quick review once you've made the requested changes below:

• Could you change the:

“to associate this map with modern geocoordinates that clients can use for representing the targeted region in world based Web Maps, such as Leaflet or Google Maps”

to

"to associate this map with a geographic coordinates system. Once associated clients could use geographic coordinates to represent the targeted region in clients like Leaflet or Google Maps. "

The reason was to make this more approachable to non Geo people. They also requested to remove reference to Web Map just to avoid confusion or conflation by mentioning another Standard.

• Move to restrictions: “When the @context property is used as an array with multiple contexts, the IIIF Presentation API 3.0 context must be the last item in the array.”
• Could you replace the TBD in the recipes under “Related Recipes” with issue numbers? If they don't have issue numbers could you remove the related recipe.

They were happy with the switch of use case and thought it made it a lot clearer.

Thanks

Glen

Response to the first change suggestion
You are not just trying to associate this map with a geographic coordinates system. If that's what you're doing, GeoJSON may not be the best option. You are trying to associate the map (on a fragment of this IIIF Web resource) with WGS84 compliant coordinates for use on the Web in hopes you could view those coordinates rendered in some way on an online (Web) map like Google Maps (and maintain the connection to metadata about the IIIF Web resource). Online Web map coordinate stuff is done with GeoJSON, and any data you have that is not GeoJSON is being shimmed into GeoJSON for this purpose, which is the argument for minting those objects with GeoJSON as opposed to anything else.

As such, I can suggest something where we meet half way

• to associate this map with WGS84 compliant coordinates for use in online mapping systems (a.k.a Web Maps). GeoJSON is the primary data format processed by online mapping systems (Web Maps), and so the geographic coordinates for the targeted region can be processed by clients (Web Maps) such as Leaflet or Google Maps

Response to second change suggestion

• I think Web Map is the clearest pronoun. Online Mapping System, Coordinate Reference System, MapUI, Map-Based Web Application all seem much more vague to me. Web Map has become accepted vocabulary. I am reluctant to change it without very good reasoning to the contrary.

Response to third change

• The JSON-LD 1.1 spec notes Multiple contexts may be combined using an array, which is processed in order. and places no restriction on order, since it is a @set. The IIIF Presentation API 3 restricts the freedom of where you can place the IIIF Presentation API 3 context because of its implementation demands, but otherwise places no restrictions here. This feels more like a (IIIF Presentation API 3) implementation note than a restriction, and I am reluctant to move it without more reasoning.

Sorry to be so confrontational! I am really a reasonable person and am happy to talk further about any of this.

I would suggest:

"to associate this map with geographic coordinates for use in web map mapping clients like Leaflet and OpenLayers."

Post IIIF Maps TSG Call Feelings

• See Elliot's new wording suggestion. Important to let people know this is for connecting with familiar web mapping clients like Leaflet, Google Maps, OpenLayers, OpenStreetMaps (pick just a couple). Not just for assigning coordinates w/o a presentation purpose.
• Capitalized Web Maps is a main component of causing these feelings. At least lowercase it. No WGS84 that's too technical. General agreement on this change.
• Leave it as an implementation note.

Thanks to everyone on the call today. It was extremely helpful for thinking through this. I will get these changes in.

Thanks Bryan its looking good!