Heath, I must say that I have come to agree with you (and Andrew concerning the repeating of 'children' for multiple children) - but lets hear what Sam has to say about the changes you propose.
Mattias 2006/11/17, Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at frankelinformatics.com>: > > Mattias, > Sorry, I didn't realise this schema was available (I overlooked your > reference to it in your original email). OK, so based on this schema the > instance is similar to my second example (but using children as the element > name rather than members) and your first example, which neither of us like > due to the plural nature of the element name for a singular element. I > think we need to pass this feedback on to Sam and see if we can ensure that > the schema fully reflects the Reference Model including element names that > reflect model attribute names such as members and existence. > > The usual way a list is represented is a container with multiple items, > this is how I came up with this representation of a members element with > item child elements. You are right in stating that this is not in the XML > schema or AOM, I was looking at this from first principles. > > Looking deeper into how the openEHR RM XML schemata represent containment, > I find that it has used the pattern suggested in the Archetype XML > schema. For example SECTION has element called items that is repeatable. I > guess we need to continue with that pattern unless we change the openEHR RM > XML schemata as well. The problem with changing this is that the openEHR > paths are designed to be compatible with XPath and converting a path such as > /content[openEHR-EHR-SECTION-findings.v1]/items[ > openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION-laboratory.v1] into XPath and evaluating it will > expect to have an XML element called items within an element called content. > > Therefore I suggest that based on the current XML schema your instance > should look like your first example: > > <attributes xsi:type="at:C_MULTIPLE _ATTRIBUTE" minOccurs="1" > maxOccurs="1"> > ... > <children xsi:type="C_COMPLEX_OBJECT">...</children> > <children xsi:type="C_COMPLEX_OBJECT">...</children> > </attributes> > > However, I would advocate that we should submit a change request to change > the schema to use the element name of members rather than children. There > are probably other AOM alignments required. > > Additionally I would like to see the use of an existence element of type > INTEGER_INTERVAL (i.e. INTERVAL<integer>) rather than minOccurs & > maxOccurs. Thoughts? > > Heath > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061117/128e4892/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
