Meeting minutes
Updating the FHIR spec for R5 RDF changes
dbooth: Eric edited RDF page. I am now taking a pass though editing it also. Hope to merge our changes in with Rob Hausam's changes, to reduce the total number pf PRs and builds that have to be done.
… Our changes should not affect the build, because they are only about documentation.
dbooth: We will still need to update examples, but they're not normative, so they don't have to meet the Sept 4 deadline.
rob: Correct, but they should still be done at least in the ballot reconciliation window, to make it into the R5 publication.
eric: I have I18N tests that should be included, prompted by Grahame.
dbooth: When do those have to be done?
eric: In principle, no deadline, but would be helpful to Grahame ASAP.
gaurav: This is the test cases repo that Grahame mentioned: https://
gaurav: repo for test cases: https://
eric: Those are generic Turtle tests --- note FHIR specific.
gaurav: Test cases: https://
rob: The rest of the spec is here: https://
… Kindling, suppotive classes etc: https://
… THere's also the HAPI core, used both for FHIR spec and HAPI server: https://
dbooth: So fixing the Turtle examples is also high priority
… But also the Turtle-specific schema for each resource needs to be updated.
rob: Those are generated from the structure defs by Grahame's magic.
ACTION: Rob to find the code for generating the Turtle templates from the structure defs.
jim: I can work on the java changes
gaurav: I can help on the java stuff, but have deadlines through Aug 31.
Issue 94: Concept URIs -- (Leader: Gaurav)
gaurav: Will need to do a UTG ticket. Should we wait until R5 comes out or do one for R4 and then make changes against it.
dbooth: I think we should wait until R5 comes out.
https://
https://
gaurav: Discussed on zulip. https://
rob: source code for templates: kindling/src/main/java/org/hl7/fhir/definitions/generators/specification/FhirTurtleGenerator.java
gaurav: grahame is worried about IRIs with non-ascii chars, because of security.
gaurav: We could switch to using URI stems instead.
eric: Could negotiate w grahame, to prove it's no less safe than what's already there.
dbooth: IRI security considerations are already written up here in general: https://
… and our Concept IRI already lists security considerations: https://
gaurav: I think it might be worth (1) adding a link to the security concerns to the Zulip chat anyway, and (2) David, if you could read through the chat conversation to see if you can get a better read on Grahame?
dbooth: Ok, I will
ADJOURNED