Dear Tom, When you say:
> there is the intention to move toward what we call 'source form' or > 'differential' archetypes, whereby archetypes contain only changes > with respect to a specialisation parent archetype how has this intention arisen, and become intended? Has there been an analysis of the benefits and costs of this approach that you can point me to? I would like to understand this better. With best wishes, Dipak ________________________________________________________ Dr Dipak Kalra Clinical Senior Lecturer in Health Informatics CHIME, University College London Holborn Union Building, Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW Phone: +44-20-7288-5966 Fax: +44-20-7288-3322 Study Health Informatics - Modular Postgraduate Degree http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/study-health-informatics On 10 Jul 2008, at 12:52, Thomas Beale wrote: > > Dear all, > > as some at least have noticed from previous posts, there is the > intention to move toward what we call 'source form' or 'differential' > archetypes, whereby archetypes contain only changes with respect to a > specialisation parent archetype. This move has no effect on the > majority > of archetypes (since they are top-level archetypes) but specialised > archetypes are changed from being 'flat-form' archetypes (where > inherited, unchanged elements are repeated in the descendant) to > differential form, where they contain only new or redefined elements > with respect to the parent archetype. Doing this makes specialised > archetypes sustainable to maintain. > > So far in the reference parser, we have implemented a fair bit of the > specialisatoin semantics, and are generating .adls (source form) files > from the existing .adl files. However, clearly in the future the aim > is > to be authoring from the outset in .adls form. The Archetype Editor > has > not had this capability added, but there are places where we want to > do > this anyway. > > As a result, we have the situation where for some time both .adl and > .adls files will be the authored form of an archetype, and therefore, > both .adls and .ald files may be generated - the former from current > .adl files, and the latter from de novo authoring in .adls (or an XML > equivalent). > > My proposal is to add a single flag to the .adl grammar that indicates > whether an archetype, in either format, is 'generated', meaning was it > machine generated from the other form. If this flag is not set, it > means that the file is the original authored form of an archetype. The > actual form of the flag would be in the first line, in the bracketed > part after the 'archetype' keyword. For example, in the archetype at > http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/openehr/ehr/entry/observation/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.ecg.v1draft.html > the first line is: > > archetype (adl_version=1.4) > > my proposal would be that if it were generated, it would be as > follows: > > archetype (adl_version=1.4; generated) > > in a similar manner to the 'controlled' indicator defined in section > 8.3.2 of the ADL 1.4 specification > (http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/architecture/am/adl.pdf). The > equivalent change would be made in the openEHR archetype XSD to allow > XML archetypes to include this flag. > > This allows tools to know which form can safely be discarded, allowing > bugs and development to continue on the tools themselves. To move > forward on this, we would need the agreement of all archetype > toolbuilders. > > all feedback welcome. > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
