I agree. A workshop, moment of reflexion, is needed. We must understand better the real facts, the use cases, the requirements, before we come to wrong constructs in the wrong models or the correct ones.
Next we need to use the same definitions for: Data Type, Composit Data Type, Archetype. We need a common understanding of the function and meaning of Class, its Attributes, and Data Types. (Data Types are used to define the interface at the field/number/text level with other system components) Gerard Data Type, (e.g. a Floating Point Number) Composit Data Type, (e.g. Floating Point number, plus truncation) Archetype, (e.g. Measurement and its interpretation: ~, <, <<, >>, >, good, bad, not to be trusted, etc, etc) -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 654 792800 On 22-apr-2006, at 10:13, Thomas Beale wrote: > Tim, > > I agree with the workshop idea, and assume that it could at least > be done in Australia as a starting point. Thus, for the short term, > I am inclined to add only the very simple "<, >, <=, >=, =" > indicator, and possibly consider the "~" one (since these at least > allow us to properly represent very low and very high path test > values that are sent as "<5" and similar). The complex stuff that > Tim has described below needs proper modelling and in the end will > lead to new data types (and as Gerard says, it may well lead to > something in the archetypes). As with everything, we need to really > understand the exact requirements first, and that probably won't > happen without a workshop. > > - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060422/372e9677/attachment.html>
