On Thursday 24 July 2008 17:29:41 Thomas Beale wrote: > Bert Verhees wrote: > > 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, > > in these cases the type name is needed. It can be left out if your > software knows a priori what kind of object a given dADL text is, e.g. > an archetype parser knows that the dADL at the top of an archetype is an > instance of RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION, so it can proceed on this basis, even > though we don't include any typename in the archetype.
Thanks, Thomas, for your reply. What I am afraid of, is that, when allowing to NOT specify the rm-type name, error-prone dadl-files can occur. Possibly an application receives erroneous dadl's as a form of communication. Also, when there is no doubt possible, when looking into the broader context, a routine, it has to analyze this broader context, can be difficult to write, as I already said before, but the longer I think about it, the more difficult it seems. Anyway, in my case, I will not allow not typed dadl's in the first, maybe later. Thanks for thinking with me. Bert > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
