Hi, I wrote another message before, earlier this week, but that was addresses to the Java-list, but I now think it is a problem of specification. ------------------ I want to know, is it in all cases possible to guess the rm-type in a dadl- construct? I ask this, because the specification says:
------------------- http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/architecture/am/adl.pdf (page 23) The basic design principle of dADL is to be able to represent data in a way that is both machineprocessible and human readable, while making the fewest assumptions possible about the information model to which the data conforms. To this end, type names are optional; often, only attribute names and values are explicitly shown. ------------------- This spec worries me, because in my opinion, the "guessing" routine for an rm- type is hard to write efficient (it contains loops, and will use many CPU when processing large amounts of data). What is more, is it safe? I say this because, some attributes are optional, maybe there can be more rm- types which can be found with a certain attribute. Example: I am thinking about DV_TEXT, it only has one required attribute, called "value". This is also the case for most ID-classes, like HierObjectID. How can a DADL- rprocessing routine know what kind of rm-type must be stored? Bert
