Tim Cook schreef: > Hi All, > > I have watched this thread with great interest. My first question is; > Why? > > Why is there such an interest in developing a specific persistence layer > API for openEHR? I think that this is an area where we should encourage > many implementations to follow their own ideas and then we can discover > which works best for this type of information. Some may believe that > the Node + Path approach on the wiki is right, others may select an XML > database like eXist. My Python implementation will use a native object > database. > > The *important* thing is that they all be able to respond to EHR > Queries. IMHO the thing that we need to examine and discuss is the > completeness and correctness of EQL. > Excuse me forgot about this. As Karsten told yesterdays, there are two kind of people, those who define and those who build. There is also a category who does both.
But what you suggest discussing the completeness of EQL is a good thing to do, but that is defining, not building. Defining EQL does not interfere with defining an API. But is has, in my opinion nothing to do with that. Maybe when the EQL definition is ready to use (I don't see much of discussion about this subject, but maybe the EQL discussion is a private discussion?), than again a way to implement it must be found,a nd maybe this changes the API. But that is a normal process in software-development, it is called innovation Bert
