Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > > 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! agree. Probably not absolutely all just yet, but if you go to http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPEC and look under the openehr.am and openehr.am.archetype components on the left, you will see what is there. > > 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? All I am saying is that sometimes (i.e. some subset of the cognitive situations in which we find ourselves), syntax works better for understanding. This is why we use syntax as the input medium for programming, mathematics and most formal logic. Looking at object renderings of the same information (which would be perfectly possible) is not usually that interesting because it is hard to see what is going on. Structural renditions become useful at coarser granulatiry - we seem to like pictures like UML diagrams for looking at whole systems of classes, but we still write our classes in syntax form. On the other hand, pure object serialisation syntaxes have no use in my view for humans - they are for transferring information in a file or message form between computers. XML is a syntax designed for the latter. That is why we usually try and look at it using structural tools (think XMLspy, Oxygen) or abstract syntaxes (think OWL abstract, ADL).
This is of course just my opinion;-) - thomas
