Hi! On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Thomas Beale < thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> Erik Sundvall wrote: > > Actually I would prefer more emphasis on the view that the AM is the > > main reference and that ADL is a serialization of it. But a "reference > > form" of individual _archetypes_ needs a serialization not just an > > object model of course... > > > The AOM is indeed intended as the definitive model of an archetype. > However it is currently lacking in a few small areas - the > ARCHETYPE_ONTOLOGY class needs some additional items for example. Are all details of known possible deficiencies of the AOM listed somewhere? Plans for bugfixes? This is vital information for all AOM based approaches and transformations going via AOM! But in > terms of explanatory power, object models are often not the best > representation; they show a parser-output view. Syntax shows a > parser-input view, and we humans are parsers (i.e. we read things > serially). This is why we represent mathematics, java code, OWL, EBNF > and many other things in the form of syntax. > Views regarding the explanatory power of object models probably depends on personality traits and available tools and visualizations. The explanatory power of GUI-renderings in internally AOM-based tools like the ADL workbench (or future possible improved GUIs) is not necessarily considered worse by users than viewing ADL... (Maybe it should be renamed "the Archetype Workbench" if/when it becomes less ADL-dependent.) Maybe you wanted to criticize the readability and explanatory power of certain forms of serialisations of the AOM rather than of the AOM itself? Best regards, Erik Sundvall erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080508/1ba9ca2f/attachment.html>
