{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"3DGIS sistemi informativi territoriali","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.3dgis.it\/en","author_name":"3DGIS","author_url":"https:\/\/www.3dgis.it\/en\/author\/3dgis\/","title":"Spatialite 3: finally towards a Shapefile replacement? | 3DGIS sistemi informativi territoriali","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HTsXYd3oTc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.3dgis.it\/en\/spatialite-3-finalmente-verso-un-sostituto-degli-shapefile\/\">Spatialite 3: finally towards a Shapefile replacement?<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.3dgis.it\/en\/spatialite-3-finalmente-verso-un-sostituto-degli-shapefile\/embed\/#?secret=HTsXYd3oTc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Spatialite 3: finally towards a Shapefile replacement?&#8221; &#8212; 3DGIS sistemi informativi territoriali\" data-secret=\"HTsXYd3oTc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www.3dgis.it\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Talking about geospatial structured data, it is very common to define various topological structures over different feature families. Here in Italy, you can easily find this behavior in IntesaGIS regulation. Taking a look abroad, the INSPIRE regulation has a very challenging topological structure implementation. We usually manage geospatial databases with topological constraints and the most [&hellip;]","thumbnail_url":"http:\/\/www.3dgis.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/pittogramma.png"}