Actually, the AOM represents alternatives and members as methods not as attributes. These methods obviously return the children attribute.
Heath > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of > Andrew Patterson > Sent: Friday, 17 November 2006 6:39 PM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: XML serializer (retry due to too large message) > > > I agree, that it's not OO style, but why isn't it implementable in > > XML? XML isn't OO, it's just a way of storing structured > information, > > and the guys building the XML parsers to create the AOM > objects again > > can probably deal with that. > > The use of complexType with extensions in XSD follows the OO > model. So if it has a field called 'children' in C_ATTRIBUTE, > that field is going to be in all in extensions - called > 'children'.. if those sub classes also define a similar > field, then they will have two fields. I just presumed that > the AOM had a textual mistake (whilst the 'alternatives' and > 'members' are more correct descriptions of the attribute, > they technically are still 'children' so I don't see a > problem with them having that inherited field and using it to > store alternatives and members respectively). > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
