This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "ITS RDF Concall Minutes 20160920"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Category:ITS RDF Category:ITS RDF Minutes 2016 Return to: ITS Main Page > ITS RDF ConCall Agenda > :Category:ITS_RDF_Minutes|I...") |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=ITS RDF Teleconference - 20-Sep-2016 - Baltimore HL7 Meetings = | =ITS RDF Teleconference - 20-Sep-2016 - Baltimore HL7 Meetings = | ||
− | Present: | + | Present: David Booth, Dale Nelson, Brian Pech, Grahame Grieve, Paul Knapp, EricP, Thomas Lukasik, Gopi, Darrell Woelk (IRC only), R Kavanagh |
Quorum met: Yes | Quorum met: Yes | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Chair: David Booth and Dale Nelson | Chair: David Booth and Dale Nelson | ||
− | Scribe: David Booth and | + | Scribe: David Booth and Dale Nelson |
Meeting log: | Meeting log: | ||
− | ( | + | See below |
+ | |||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | trackbot> Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference | ||
+ | <trackbot> Date: 20 September 2016 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Topic: Ballot item 11450 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Comment from Lloyd that the page should be more focused on how to use it, rather than rationale. | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: We discuss the org of the 3 rdf-related pages previously | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: propose that we agree with the commenter, tighten up the language, more implementer focused, but no major changes | ||
+ | <dbooth> Topic: Ballot item 10663 | ||
+ | <dbooth> http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=10663 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Comment from Grahame. Should decide what to do about the JSON-LD format. | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: While I was doing the turtle, I realized that there was an analogous form in JSON-LD that could be done. It differs from FHIR/JSON. | ||
+ | <dbooth> ... It is not the same as FHIR/JSON | ||
+ | <dbooth> ... The @context is not yet generated, but I could generate it. | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: The FHIR/JSON reuses the same short property names for different purposes. In contrast, the JSON-LD uses fully qualified names | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: I like the JSON-LD | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: right now there is one difference between the JSON-LD and the turtle: the property name is permuted. | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: they need to be semantically identical | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: Might need to put in another @context | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: should we keep the JSON-LD? | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: I like it | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: I like it also. | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: There is a cost. parsers would have to support it. | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: motion to keep the JSON-LD | ||
+ | <dbooth> paul: seconded | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: I should write a blog post about it, calling attention to it. we might want to change our minds if we get a lot of pushback. | ||
+ | <dbooth> richard: i like the JSON-LD also. | ||
+ | <dbooth> agenda page: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_ConCall_Agenda | ||
+ | <dbooth> Topic: Approval of minutes | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: move to approve minutes en masse | ||
+ | <dbooth> seconded by paul | ||
+ | <dbooth> Feb 23 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Mar 01 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Mar 08 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Mar 15 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Mar 22 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Mar 29 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Apr 05 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Apr 12 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Apr 19 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Apr 26 | ||
+ | <dbooth> May 03 | ||
+ | <dbooth> May 10 in Montreal | ||
+ | <dbooth> May 17 | ||
+ | <dbooth> May 24 | ||
+ | <dbooth> May 31 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jun 07 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jun 14 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jun 21 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jun 28 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jul 05 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jul 12 | ||
+ | <dbooth> (No minutes for Jul 19 -- David on vac) | ||
+ | <dbooth> Jul 26 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Aug 02 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Aug 09 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Aug 16 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Aug 23 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Aug 30 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Sep 06 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Sep 13 - Canceled | ||
+ | <dbooth> motion passed 8-0-1 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Montreal minutes approved | ||
+ | <dbooth> Topic: PATCH | ||
+ | <dbooth> s/PATCH/JSON Comments | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: regarding taking out JSON comments | ||
+ | <dbooth> s/comments/comment field/ | ||
+ | <dbooth> ... we were having trouble with them | ||
+ | <dbooth> richard: The XML comments were being encoded into JSON. But we will now take them out. And the canonical XML does not have them. | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: motion to remove the JSON comments | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: second | ||
+ | <dbooth> AGREED: remove the JSON comments unless there is community pushback before Oct 11 | ||
+ | <dbooth> passed: 9-0-0 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Topic: PATCH | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: We're adding PATCH HTTP operation | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: We're using JSON patch and XML patch as defined. | ||
+ | <dbooth> ... We've tried this at two connectathons, and it's working. | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: how does the expressivity of XML patch compare with JSON patch? | ||
+ | <dbooth> grahame: XML patch is slightly more expressive. | ||
+ | <dbooth> AGREED: To recognize that PATCH is being added for XML and JSON, with no objectiions | ||
+ | <dbooth> passed 9-0-0 | ||
+ | <dbooth> Topic: Advanced Tech for Life Science Conference | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: They want a tutorial on FHIR RDF | ||
+ | <dbooth> .... what is FHIR, how does the RDF version relate to others, how to do validation | ||
+ | <dbooth> ... Use case using SNOMED ont | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: Conf is in Amsterdam around Dec 1 | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: would be great if we can leverage your work for the FHIR RDF pages, that would be great | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: How many examples were you planning to do? | ||
+ | <dbooth> eric: 4-5 | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: Please make one dead simple | ||
+ | <dbooth> dbooth: also please review them on our teleconference | ||
+ | </pre> |
Latest revision as of 14:23, 28 September 2016
Return to: ITS Main Page > ITS RDF ConCall Agenda > ITS RDF Meeting Minutes > 2016
ITS RDF Teleconference - 20-Sep-2016 - Baltimore HL7 Meetings
Present: David Booth, Dale Nelson, Brian Pech, Grahame Grieve, Paul Knapp, EricP, Thomas Lukasik, Gopi, Darrell Woelk (IRC only), R Kavanagh
Quorum met: Yes
Chair: David Booth and Dale Nelson
Scribe: David Booth and Dale Nelson
Meeting log: See below
trackbot> Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference <trackbot> Date: 20 September 2016 <dbooth> Topic: Ballot item 11450 <dbooth> Comment from Lloyd that the page should be more focused on how to use it, rather than rationale. <dbooth> eric: We discuss the org of the 3 rdf-related pages previously <dbooth> grahame: propose that we agree with the commenter, tighten up the language, more implementer focused, but no major changes <dbooth> Topic: Ballot item 10663 <dbooth> http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=10663 <dbooth> Comment from Grahame. Should decide what to do about the JSON-LD format. <dbooth> grahame: While I was doing the turtle, I realized that there was an analogous form in JSON-LD that could be done. It differs from FHIR/JSON. <dbooth> ... It is not the same as FHIR/JSON <dbooth> ... The @context is not yet generated, but I could generate it. <dbooth> dbooth: The FHIR/JSON reuses the same short property names for different purposes. In contrast, the JSON-LD uses fully qualified names <dbooth> eric: I like the JSON-LD <dbooth> grahame: right now there is one difference between the JSON-LD and the turtle: the property name is permuted. <dbooth> dbooth: they need to be semantically identical <dbooth> eric: Might need to put in another @context <dbooth> grahame: should we keep the JSON-LD? <dbooth> eric: I like it <dbooth> dbooth: I like it also. <dbooth> eric: There is a cost. parsers would have to support it. <dbooth> dbooth: motion to keep the JSON-LD <dbooth> paul: seconded <dbooth> grahame: I should write a blog post about it, calling attention to it. we might want to change our minds if we get a lot of pushback. <dbooth> richard: i like the JSON-LD also. <dbooth> agenda page: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_ConCall_Agenda <dbooth> Topic: Approval of minutes <dbooth> grahame: move to approve minutes en masse <dbooth> seconded by paul <dbooth> Feb 23 <dbooth> Mar 01 <dbooth> Mar 08 <dbooth> Mar 15 <dbooth> Mar 22 <dbooth> Mar 29 <dbooth> Apr 05 <dbooth> Apr 12 <dbooth> Apr 19 <dbooth> Apr 26 <dbooth> May 03 <dbooth> May 10 in Montreal <dbooth> May 17 <dbooth> May 24 <dbooth> May 31 <dbooth> Jun 07 <dbooth> Jun 14 <dbooth> Jun 21 <dbooth> Jun 28 <dbooth> Jul 05 <dbooth> Jul 12 <dbooth> (No minutes for Jul 19 -- David on vac) <dbooth> Jul 26 <dbooth> Aug 02 <dbooth> Aug 09 <dbooth> Aug 16 <dbooth> Aug 23 <dbooth> Aug 30 <dbooth> Sep 06 <dbooth> Sep 13 - Canceled <dbooth> motion passed 8-0-1 <dbooth> Montreal minutes approved <dbooth> Topic: PATCH <dbooth> s/PATCH/JSON Comments <dbooth> grahame: regarding taking out JSON comments <dbooth> s/comments/comment field/ <dbooth> ... we were having trouble with them <dbooth> richard: The XML comments were being encoded into JSON. But we will now take them out. And the canonical XML does not have them. <dbooth> dbooth: motion to remove the JSON comments <dbooth> grahame: second <dbooth> AGREED: remove the JSON comments unless there is community pushback before Oct 11 <dbooth> passed: 9-0-0 <dbooth> Topic: PATCH <dbooth> grahame: We're adding PATCH HTTP operation <dbooth> grahame: We're using JSON patch and XML patch as defined. <dbooth> ... We've tried this at two connectathons, and it's working. <dbooth> eric: how does the expressivity of XML patch compare with JSON patch? <dbooth> grahame: XML patch is slightly more expressive. <dbooth> AGREED: To recognize that PATCH is being added for XML and JSON, with no objectiions <dbooth> passed 9-0-0 <dbooth> Topic: Advanced Tech for Life Science Conference <dbooth> eric: They want a tutorial on FHIR RDF <dbooth> .... what is FHIR, how does the RDF version relate to others, how to do validation <dbooth> ... Use case using SNOMED ont <dbooth> eric: Conf is in Amsterdam around Dec 1 <dbooth> dbooth: would be great if we can leverage your work for the FHIR RDF pages, that would be great <dbooth> dbooth: How many examples were you planning to do? <dbooth> eric: 4-5 <dbooth> dbooth: Please make one dead simple <dbooth> dbooth: also please review them on our teleconference