Hi Thomas, > >taking the risk of being too philosophical, I reply to the list anyway. > > > you took the risk and you were;-) But that's ok, we like philosophy here...
Sometimes it is hard to put all those thoughts into concrete terms. Just trying to cross some borders that might limit our thinking ... > to briefly reply/paraphrase your remarks: you are suggesting that the > current split between the reference model in openEHR and archetypes is > nothing special, The split is special, because archetypes are flexible while traditional classes with attributes and methods hard-wired in them are not. > why not just have an object model of 1 or 2 classes > representing 'thing', and do everything in archetypes? Yes, that is about right. But not everything should be done in archetypes, just everything that belongs to domain knowledge, to which also count user interfaces and workflows in my opinion. > This is certainly > theoretically possible - you would probably want a few more types, basic > data types and data structures are useful. Not necessarily. If you make the only remaining universal type a container which can emulate any other kinds of containers, then you do not need different types for data structures anymore. (I mentioned this about a year ago in this list, but somehow cannot find the list archive to reference my mail here.) > We have stayed with the split we have in openEHR because: [..] This is plausible for now and I have to accept. > So, in summary there is (and has to be) some pragmatism in what we are > doing... I see and I agree. So let's continue this dialogue when time has come. Christian - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
