Bert Verhees wrote: > I wonder, Ian, did you ever looked to Cache (www.intersystems.com) > It is called Post-relational, this is because it also can understand SQL. > But it is a kind of OO-database, I don't know if it has all the > OO-particularities like (multiple)inheritence, or object as field of another > object. > Hi Bert,
I have downloaded the free product but had a configuration issue which has topped it working and just at the moment the demands of my 'real job' stops me addressing the problem or experimenting with it. Cache *seems* like an ideal solution but, of course, until one experiments a little and considers the overall cost, it is difficult to be sure. My interest stems from some consulting work I was involved with, attempting to integrate social work systems and clinical systems around Care of the Elderly standard data collection forms. The battles waged (technical and socio-political) over establishing such standards made me convinced of the need for having much more flexible ways of defining common standards. It can be very difficult to arrive at 100% agreement on form design, especially when the elements that make up the form are genuinely contentious or experimental. Far better to standardise at archetype level - that way at least 80-90% of the from will be standardised and the remainder can be handled locally, either as a local fully computable archetype or a 'foreign' archetype, which is only computable in generating some reasonably sensible text on-screen, in a similar fashion to XML/XSLT transformations. Regards, Ian
