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, wrote:
> >> "It has been mentioned before, as a way to clarify what qualifies as
> successful round tripping."
>
> David..
>
> I wasn't
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 ta
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. technica
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,
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 tr
Agenda:
# Preparation for Montreal face-to-face meeting:
## Slides by Michael van der Zel for review
## Short presentation by Ken Lord? (see Apr 5 message)
# Draft of [http://w3c.github.io/hcls-fhir-rdf/spec/rdf.html draft FHIR
RDF page on github] and aligning with
[https://hl7-fhir.github.io/rd
