- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:48:11 -0400
- To: tlukasik@exnihilum.com, Robert Hausam <rrhausam@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tlukasik@exnihilum.com wrote: > >> "We always had stated that we must be able to get back "the same > thing"." > That's true, Rob.. we've always included round-tripability in our > conversations, but (and again, please correct me if I seem to be missing > or misunderstanding something), "the same thing" does not always mean > the same thing. > It might mean "equality" or it might mean "equivalence". That's the > reason that we have both an "==" and an "===" operator in many > programmimg languages. > So getting back to the original question that David asked and Lloyd > offered some insight into, it sounds to me like the answer is that > messing with the URI's might be OK if we're only required to make sure > that they're "the same thing" in the sense that they're equivalent > (meaning that "they point to the same thing"), but it wouldn't be OK if > they have to be "the same thing" in the stricter sense of not altering > the digital signature. Right now we essentially have two well-defined interpretations of what "the same thing" might mean. One is "having the same bytes". That's a strict interpretation. Another is "having the same digital signature". That's looser, but it is still a clear definition that we do not need to invent. If we were to invent a third interpretation that is even looser then we would have to clearly define it and describe the problem that it is intended to solve. Such a definition could have some utility but I am doubtful that it would be enough to justify the work and the confusion that would be added by having one more notion of equivalence. David Booth > TJL > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs > From: "Robert Hausam" <rrhausam@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 11:54 pm > To: tlukasik@exnihilum.com > Cc: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> > "Lloyd McKenzie" <lloyd@lmckenzie.com> > "Grahame Grieve" <grahame@healthintersections.com.au> > "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org> > "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Right. We always had stated that we must be able to get back "the same > > thing". And signature is a means to verify that. > > > > Rob > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:05 PM, <tlukasik@exnihilum.com> wrote: > > > >> >> "It has been mentioned before, as a way to clarify what qualifies as > >> successful round tripping." > >> > >> David.. > >> > >> I wasn't doubting that it was ever mentioned. My concern was that we may > >> not be keeping the additional challenge that signing introduces in mind > >> when evaluating and testing the round tripping of our prototype RDF > >> instances. > >> > >> I think that if we *were* doing that, we would have been aware of what > >> Lloyd pointed out, and have been able to answer our own question RE the > >> preservation of absolute and relative URIs. > >> > >> TJL > >> > >> ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- > >> > >> Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs > >> > From: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> > >> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 4:05 pm > >> To: tlukasik@exnihilum.com > >> Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <lloyd@lmckenzie.com> > >> "Grahame Grieve" <grahame@healthintersections.com.au> > >> > >> "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org> > >> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > On 04/26/2016 03:44 PM, tlukasik@exnihilum.com wrote: > >> >> >> "If we want the RDF to be an equal sibling to xml and JSON then > >> >> round tripping needs to be signature safe." > >> >> David.. > >> >> Lloyd's comment points out the need for a significant and non-trivial > >> >> "uptick" in the level of care that will have to be taken when > generating > >> >> RDF. > >> >> I certainly haven't been to every single FHIR RDF meeting (so please > >> >> correct me if I'm wrong), but I don't recall "signature safety" being > >> >> discussed much (if at all) when we've discussed aspects of round > >> tripping. > >> > > >> > It has been mentioned before, as a way to clarify what qualifies as > >> > successful round tripping. Successful round tripping means getting > back > >> > "the same thing" if you convert from one FHIR serialization to another > >> > and back again. But in deciding what we mean by "the same thing" one > >> > might not expect something like whitespace differences to count as > >> > consequential differences, whereas other changes definitely should be > >> > considered important. The digital signature criteria provide a way to > >> > arbitrate between important and unimportant differences. > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> >> TJL > >> >> > >> >> ---------------------------- Original Message > >> ---------------------------- > >> >> Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs > >> >> > >> > From: "Lloyd McKenzie" <lloyd@lmckenzie.com> > >> >> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm > >> >> To: "Grahame Grieve" <grahame@healthintersections.com.au> > >> >> Cc: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> > >> >> "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org> > >> >> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> > >> >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> > If we want the RDF to be an equal sibling to xml and JSON then > round > >> >> > tripping needs to be signature safe. At the moment, that means > >> retaining > >> >> > absolute vs. relative references. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, Grahame Grieve < > >> >> > grahame@healthintersections.com.au> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> well, this is tricky. technically, it's not strictly required, but > >> >> it's a > >> >> >> lossy transform (lossy in both ways, in fact). One of the > >> attractions of > >> >> >> fhir;reference for me is that you can have an absolute > reference for > >> RDF > >> >> >> and preserve the original fhir url > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Grahame > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org > >> >> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david@dbooth.org');>> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Grahame and/or Lloyd, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> In today's FHIR RDF teleconference, a question came up about > >> >> relative and > >> >> >>> absolute URIs in FHIR references. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Must absolute and relative references be round tripped as is? > I.e., > >> do > >> >> >>> we need to maintain the distinction between relative and absolute > >> >> >>> references when round tripping, or can relative URIs be > turned into > >> >> >>> absolute URIs and vice versa? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I did not see any mention of normalizing references in the > >> >> discussion of > >> >> >>> Canonical JSON: > >> >> >>> https://hl7-fhir.github.io/json.html > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Thanks, > >> >> >>> David Booth > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> ----- > >> >> >> http://www.healthintersections.com.au / > >> >> grahame@healthintersections.com.au > >> >> >> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grahame@healthintersections.com.au');> > >> / > >> >> >> +61 411 867 065 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > *********************************************************************************** > >> >> >> Manage your subscriptions <http://www.HL7.org/listservice> | View > >> the > >> >> >> archives <http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its> | Unsubscribe > >> >> >> > >> >> < > >> > http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=lloyd@lmckenzie.com&list=its > >> > > >> >> >> | Terms of use > >> >> >> <http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > > >> >> > *Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng. > >> >> > Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services > >> >> > Gevity Consulting Inc. > >> >> > > >> >> > E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com > >> >> > M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110> > >> >> > W: gevityinc.com > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > *GEVITY**Informatics for a healthier world * > >> >> > > >> >> > CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the > >> >> exclusive > >> >> > use of its intended recipients. If you have received this > >> >> communication by > >> >> > error, please notify the sender and delete the message without > >> copying or > >> >> > disclosing it*.* > >> >> > > >> >> > NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and > positions > >> >> > expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my > >> employer, > >> >> > my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance > positions > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > *********************************************************************************** > >> >> > Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice > >> >> > View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its > >> >> > Unsubscribe - > >> >> > >> > http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=tlukasik@exnihilum.com&list=its > >> >> > Terms of use - > >> >> http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > *********************************************************************************** > >> > Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice > >> > View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its > >> > Unsubscribe - > >> > http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=tlukasik@exnihilum.com&list=its > >> > Terms of use - > >> http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > *********************************************************************************** > >> Manage your subscriptions <http://www.HL7.org/listservice> | View the > >> archives <http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its> | Unsubscribe > >> > <http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=rrhausam@gmail.com&list=its> > >> | Terms of use > >> <http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Robert Hausam, MD > > +1 (801) 949-1556 > > rrhausam@gmail.com > > > > > *********************************************************************************** > > Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice > > View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its > > Unsubscribe - > http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=tlukasik@exnihilum.com&list=its > > Terms of use - > http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules >
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 13:48:48 UTC