subject:"Re\: Question on FHIR references \- relative and absolute URIs"

RE: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-05-02 Thread Vassil Peytchev

Would adding “FHIR Canonicalization” help in this case? I.e., you apply 
canonicalization of the serialized format (format-dependent, XML canonical form 
as an example), then replace relative URL with absolute URLs (one of, and so 
far the only form of FHIR canonicalization), and then sign, you will have the 
same digital signature every time….

From: owner-...@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-...@lists.hl7.org] On Behalf Of 
Lloyd McKenzie
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:11 PM
To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
Cc: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>; Robert Hausam <rrhau...@gmail.com>; Grahame 
Grieve <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>; i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb 
HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Hi Thomas,

Same digital signature means that - after cannonicalization - there are the 
same bytes.  That's key.  Indenting the XML changes the raw bytes, but doesn't 
change the bytes of the canonicalized form.  On the other hand, changing 
relative URLs to full URLs does change the bytes of the cannonicalized form).  
It also changes server-portability of instances.

Lloyd

Lloyd McKenzie, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmcken...@gevityinc.com<mailto:lmcken...@gevityinc.com>
M: +1 587-334-1110
W: gevityinc.com<http://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

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:28 PM, 
<tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>> wrote:
>> "One is "having the same bytes".  That's a strict interpretation.  Another 
>> is "having the same digital signature". That's looser"

I'd disagree with that statement, David.

To have the same digital signature it would have to have the same bytes, and in 
fact if even a single bit is different then it won't produce the same digital 
signature.

So I don't agree that those are different "definitions" of "the same thing", or 
that the digital signature interpretation is "looser".

TJL

---- Original Message 
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>>
Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am
To: tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>
"Robert Hausam" <rrhau...@gmail.com<mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com>>
Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>>
"Grahame Grieve" 
<grah...@healthintersections.com.au<mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au>>
"i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>" 
<i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>>
"w3c semweb HCLS" 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
--

> On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@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

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread Lloyd McKenzie

Hi Vassil,

Technically a relative reference and an absolute reference are distinct
things.  Relative reference says if the data moves to a new server, the
reference movies to.  An absolute reference says if the data moves to a new
server, the reference points to the original server.  So I'm not sure that
we *want* them to resolve to the same thing from a canonicalization
perspective.  That said, it's an option to explore


Lloyd

*Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmcken...@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

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Vassil Peytchev <vas...@epic.com> wrote:

> Would adding “FHIR Canonicalization” help in this case? I.e., you apply
> canonicalization of the serialized format (format-dependent, XML canonical
> form as an example), then replace relative URL with absolute URLs (one of,
> and so far the only form of FHIR canonicalization), and then sign, you will
> have the same digital signature every time….
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-...@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-...@lists.hl7.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Lloyd McKenzie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:11 PM
> *To:* tluka...@exnihilum.com
> *Cc:* David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>; Robert Hausam <rrhau...@gmail.com>;
> Grahame Grieve <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>; i...@lists.hl7.org;
> w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
> Same digital signature means that - after cannonicalization - there are
> the same bytes.  That's key.  Indenting the XML changes the raw bytes, but
> doesn't change the bytes of the canonicalized form.  On the other hand,
> changing relative URLs to full URLs does change the bytes of the
> cannonicalized form).  It also changes server-portability of instances.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lloyd
>
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng.
> Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
> Gevity Consulting Inc.
>
>  E: lmcken...@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
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:28 PM, <tluka...@exnihilum.com> wrote:
>
> >> "*One is "having the same bytes".  That's a strict interpretation.
> Another is "having the same digital signature". That's looser*"
>
>
>
> I'd disagree with that statement, David.
>
>
>
> To have the same digital signature it would have to have * the same bytes*,
> and in fact if even a single bit is different then it won't produce the
> same digital signature.
>
>
>
> So I don't agree that those are different "definitions" of "the same
> thing", or that the digital signature interpretation is "looser".
>
>
>
> TJL
>
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
> From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
>
> Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am
> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
> "Robert Hausam" <rrhau...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
> "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>
> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> --
>
> > On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tluka...@exnihilum.com wrote:
> >> >> "We always had stated that we must be able to get back "the same
> >> th

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.

Lloyd

Where is the notion of "canonicalized form" defined?  Does it address issues 
such as the order of XML attributes,  vs  tags, the order of xmlns: 
entries in the header, etc?

Would two xml documents, one of which had "xmlns:foo='http://www.foo.org/' … 
mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:10 PM
To: "tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>" 
<tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>>
Cc: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>>, Robert Hausam 
<rrhau...@gmail.com<mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com>>, Grahame Grieve 
<grah...@healthintersections.com.au<mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au>>,
 "i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>" 
<i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>>, 
"public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>" 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
Resent-From: 
"public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>" 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:11 PM

Hi Thomas,

Same digital signature means that - after cannonicalization - there are the 
same bytes.  That's key.  Indenting the XML changes the raw bytes, but doesn't 
change the bytes of the canonicalized form.  On the other hand, changing 
relative URLs to full URLs does change the bytes of the cannonicalized form).  
It also changes server-portability of instances.


Lloyd


Lloyd McKenzie, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmcken...@gevityinc.com<mailto:lmcken...@gevityinc.com>
M: +1 587-334-1110
W: gevityinc.com<http://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

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:28 PM, 
<tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>> wrote:
>> "One is "having the same bytes".  That's a strict interpretation.  Another 
>> is "having the same digital signature". That's looser"

I'd disagree with that statement, David.

To have the same digital signature it would have to have the same bytes, and in 
fact if even a single bit is different then it won't produce the same digital 
signature.

So I don't agree that those are different "definitions" of "the same thing", or 
that the digital signature interpretation is "looser".

TJL


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>>

Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am
To: tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>
"Robert Hausam" <rrhau...@gmail.com<mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com>>
Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>>
"Grahame Grieve" 
<grah...@healthintersections.com.au<mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au>>
"i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>" 
<i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>>
"w3c semweb HCLS" 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
--

> On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tluka...@exnihilum.com<mailto:tluka...@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

RE: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread Paul A. Knapp

Hi All:

Aren't the relative urls used to provide  the 
consistency across sites which would be needed to 
not break signatures - unless you only sign on 
content and referred-to content, rather than on 
references, in which case the nature of the reference is irrelevant.

Paul

At 08:24 PM 2016-04-27, Vassil Peytchev wrote:
Would adding âFHIR Canonicalizationâ help in 
this case? I.e., you apply canonicalization of 
the serialized format (format-dependent, XML 
canonical form as an example), then replace 
relative URL with absolute URLs (one of, and so 
far the only form of FHIR canonicalization), and 
then sign, you will have the same digital signature every timeâ¦.

From: owner-...@lists.hl7.org 
[mailto:owner-...@lists.hl7.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd McKenzie

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:11 PM
To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
Cc: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>; Robert 
Hausam <rrhau...@gmail.com>; Grahame Grieve 
<grah...@healthintersections.com.au>; 
i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Hi Thomas,

Same digital signature means that - after 
cannonicalization - there are the same 
bytes.  That's key.  Indenting the XML changes 
the raw bytes, but doesn't change the bytes of 
the canonicalized form.  On the other hand, 
changing relative URLs to full URLs does change 
the bytes of the cannonicalized form).  It also 
changes server-portability of instances.

Lloyd

Lloyd McKenzie, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: <mailto:lmcken...@gevityinc.com>lmcken...@gevityinc.com
M: +1 587-334-1110
W: <http://gevityinc.com/>gevityinc.com

GEVITY
Informatics for a healthier world

CONFIDENTIALITY â 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

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:28 PM, 
<<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>tluka...@exnihilum.com> wrote:
>> "One is "having the same bytes".  That's a 
strict interpretation.  Another is "having the 
same digital signature". That's looser"

I'd disagree with that statement, David.

To have the same digital signature it would have 
to have the same bytes, and in fact if even a 
single bit is different then it won't produce the same digital signature.

So I don't agree that those are different 
"definitions" of "the same thing", or that the 
digital signature interpretation is "looser".

TJL

-------- Original Message 
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "David Booth" <<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>da...@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am
To: <mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>tluka...@exnihilum.com
"Robert Hausam" <<mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com>rrhau...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>ll...@lmckenzie.com>
"Grahame Grieve" 
<<mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au>grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
"<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>i...@lists.hl7.org" 
<<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>i...@lists.hl7.org>
"w3c semweb HCLS" 
<<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

--

> On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, 
<mailto:tluka...@exnihilum.com>tluka...@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
&

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread Lloyd McKenzie

Hi Thomas,

Same digital signature means that - after cannonicalization - there are the
same bytes.  That's key.  Indenting the XML changes the raw bytes, but
doesn't change the bytes of the canonicalized form.  On the other hand,
changing relative URLs to full URLs does change the bytes of the
cannonicalized form).  It also changes server-portability of instances.


Lloyd

*Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmcken...@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

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:28 PM, <tluka...@exnihilum.com> wrote:

> >> "*One is "having the same bytes".  That's a strict interpretation.
> Another is "having the same digital signature". That's looser*"
>
> I'd disagree with that statement, David.
>
> To have the same digital signature it would have to have *the same bytes*,
> and in fact if even a single bit is different then it won't produce the
> same digital signature.
>
> So I don't agree that those are different "definitions" of "the same
> thing", or that the digital signature interpretation is "looser".
>
> TJL
>
>
> ---- Original Message 
> Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
> From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
> Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am
> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
> "Robert Hausam" <rrhau...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
> "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>
> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> --
>
> > On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tluka...@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" <rrhau...@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 11:54 pm
> >> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
> >> Cc: "David Booth"

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread tlukasik




>> "One is "having the same bytes". �That's a strict interpretation. 
�Another is "having the same digital signature". That's looser"

�

I'd disagree with that statement, David.

�

To have the same digital signature it would have to have the same 
bytes, and in fact if even a single bit is different then it won't produce the 
same digital signature.

�

So I don't agree that those are different "definitions" of "the same 
thing", or that the digital signature interpretation is "looser".

�

TJL

�

-------- Original Message ----

Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>

Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am

To: tluka...@exnihilum.com

"Robert Hausam" <rrhau...@gmail.com>

Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>

"Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>

"i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>

"w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

--



> On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tluka...@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" <rrhau...@gmail.com>

>> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 11:54 pm

>> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com

>> Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>

>> "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>

>> "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>

>> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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, <tluka...@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

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread David Booth


On 04/27/2016 01:33 AM, tluka...@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" <rrhau...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 11:54 pm
To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
"Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
"Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
"i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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, <tluka...@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" <da...@dbooth.org>
 >> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 4:05 pm
 >> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
 >> Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
 >> "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
 >>
 >> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>
 >> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
 >>
--
 >>
 >> > On 04/26/2016 03:44 PM, tluka...@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 tr

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread Paul A. Knapp


Hi All:

The question of Reference content is the first 
instance of discussing altering element content 
that I can recall, so from the meeting which I 
have attended I would expect that rigorous 
round-tripping has always been the goal.


Regards
Paul


At 10:44 PM 2016-04-26, tluka...@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.


TJL


 Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm
To: "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
"i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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 <
> grah...@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 <da...@dbooth.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@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 / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grah...@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=ll...@lmckenzie.com=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: lmcken...@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=tluka...@exnihilum.com=its
> Terms of use - 
http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules


***
<http://www.HL7.org/listservice>

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread tlukasik




>> "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. �
�

        TJL

    �

-------- Original Message 

Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

From: "Robert Hausam" <rrhau...@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 11:54 pm

To: tluka...@exnihilum.com

Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>

"Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>

"Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>

"i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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, <tluka...@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" <da...@dbooth.org>

>> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 4:05 pm

>> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com

>> Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>

>> "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>

>>

>> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>

>> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

>> --

>>

>> > On 04/26/2016 03:44 PM, tluka...@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

>> >>

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-27 Thread tlukasik




>> "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.

�

TJL

�

 Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

From: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>

Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm

To: "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>

Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>

"i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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 <

> grah...@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 <da...@dbooth.org

>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@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 / grah...@healthintersections.com.au

>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grah...@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=ll...@lmckenzie.com=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: lmcken...@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=tluka...@exnihilum.com=its

> Terms of use - http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-26 Thread Robert Hausam

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, <tluka...@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" <da...@dbooth.org>
> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 4:05 pm
> To: tluka...@exnihilum.com
> Cc: "Lloyd McKenzie" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
> "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
>
> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>
> "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> --
>
> > On 04/26/2016 03:44 PM, tluka...@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" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
> >> Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm
> >> To: "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
> >> Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
> >> "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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 <
> >> > grah...@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 <da...@dbooth.org
> >> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@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.
> >> >

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-26 Thread David Booth


On 04/26/2016 03:44 PM, tluka...@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" <ll...@lmckenzie.com>
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm
To: "Grahame Grieve" <grah...@healthintersections.com.au>
Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
"i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@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 <
 > grah...@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 <da...@dbooth.org
 >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@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 /
grah...@healthintersections.com.au
 >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grah...@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=ll...@lmckenzie.com=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: lmcken...@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=tluka...@exnihilum.com=its
 > Terms of use -
http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-26 Thread Lloyd McKenzie

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 <
grah...@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  > 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 / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
>  /
> +61 411 867 065
>
>
> ***
> Manage your subscriptions  | View the
> archives  | Unsubscribe
> 
> | Terms of use
> 
>


-- 

*Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmcken...@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

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

2016-04-26 Thread Grahame Grieve

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  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 / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065

RE: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

RE: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs

14 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information