Depending on how it evolves, this may require either extensions to the fdsn station ws or perhaps a completely separate service. What that means depends a lot on whether StationJSON continues to look just like StationXML or if it adopts a JsonApi style, ie #1 and #2
If it stays as a json version of xml, then maybe little need change. But if moves to JsonApi then I think a tightly coupled web service might be very useful. In particular some thought should be given to how sub-objects (ie individual response stage or channel) are identified/referenced from other objects. Current ids tend to be long-lived and meaningful, but this may not be optimal in a shorter term transactional scenario, where something like integer database ids may be more efficient.
Depending on how it evolves, this may require either extensions to the fdsn station ws or perhaps a completely separate service. What that means depends a lot on whether StationJSON continues to look just like StationXML or if it adopts a JsonApi style, ie #1 and #2
If it stays as a json version of xml, then maybe little need change. But if moves to JsonApi then I think a tightly coupled web service might be very useful. In particular some thought should be given to how sub-objects (ie individual response stage or channel) are identified/referenced from other objects. Current ids tend to be long-lived and meaningful, but this may not be optimal in a shorter term transactional scenario, where something like integer database ids may be more efficient.