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
t Hausam ;
> Grahame Grieve ; i...@lists.hl7.org;
> w3c semweb HCLS
> *Subject:* Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
> Same digital signature means that - after cannonicalization - there are
> the same bytes.
mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au>>,
"i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>"
mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>>,
"public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>"
mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Questi
rieve
;
i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS
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 c
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
>
>
>
or that the digital signature interpretation is "looser".
�
TJL
�
------------ Original Message ----
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "David Booth"
Date: Wed, April 27, 2016 9:48 am
To
ven
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
--- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "Lloyd McKenzie"
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm
To: "Grahame Grieve"
Cc: "David Booth"
"i...@lists.hl7.org"
"w3c semweb HCL
ense 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
�
Origi
ute and relative URIs.
�
TJL
�
Original Message
----
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "David Booth"
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 4:05 pm
To: tluka...@exn
discussed aspects of round tripping.
�
TJL
�
Original Message ------------
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "Lloyd McKenzie"
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm
To: "G
k 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 --------
>
> Su
------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Question on FHIR references - relative and absolute URIs
From: "Lloyd McKenzie"
Date: Tue, April 26, 2016 3:00 pm
To: "Grahame Grieve"
Cc: "David Booth"
"i...@lists.hl7.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. 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
16 matches
Mail list logo
