Excellent analysis.
On 01/05/2017 11:54, Seref Arikan wrote:
Hi Bjørn,
I'll respond to your interpretation of aql in the git repo in a
minute. But before I do that I'd like to thank you for asking the
question and going into the trouble of putting this into a git repo
because your question is pointing at an important issue we have at the
moment: we don't have a well defined, formal semantics for AQL. This
is my personal opinion and all disagreement is welcome.
AQL is a brilliant idea coined by Chunlan, Heath, Tom and Sam
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17911747
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17911747>] but until recently, it
was not more than a few wiki pages, it was not even part of the
standard. It is now sitting next to other specifications but its
documentation is mostly focusing on the syntax. The semantics of
queries is mostly implied and vendors more or less arrive at the same
conclusions intuitively. However, this is not good enough.
Personally I see AQL is the hidden treasure of openEHR, it has huge
potential and it is the most likely candidate to implement lots of
advanced use cases in an interoperable way. For that potential to be
realised, AQL needs a clear description of its underlying semantics so
that edge cases are clarified and vendors support the same behaviour.
Otherwise, we'll lose the ability to build portable solutions that can
be moved from point A to B even though both points are openEHR
implementations.
_______________________________________________
openEHR-implementers mailing list
openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
