Hi David, We need to differentiate the AOM from ADL, just because the AOM makes cardinality optional doesn?t mean that ADL does not require a cardinality keyword. Remember that ADL is just a serialisation of the AOM just as the AOM can be serialised using XML.
On a related topic, I think that the attributes of cardinality may need to be optional for the same reasons as occurrences and existence. Therefore for the reasons that David states below, I wonder if it is reasonable to make cardinality mandatory and its attributes optional instead. Regards Heath From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of David Moner Sent: Friday, 3 July 2009 4:40 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: optional existence, cardinality and occurrences. I agree with the initial idea about the optionality of existence, occurrences and cardinality; there is no need to state them if they are not changed from the reference model. But one problem arises with the cardinality. As far as I know, the only way to differenciate a C_Single_Attribute and a C_Multiple_Attribute while parsing the ADL and generating the AOM instance is through the 'existence' of the cardinality constraint. If we don't have that keyword it is imposible to choose the correct attribute object. At the Jira issue we can read "with reference model checking...", but making the ADL parsers dependent of the RM is absolutely not a good idea in my opinion. 2009/6/30 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> Dear all, as part of the specialisation semantics, which are nearly all implemented in the ADL workbench, we have made existence, cardinality and occurrences all optional. This is sensible for 'source' form archetypes - i.e. it is natural that only overridden constraints be stated in an archetype, if there is no override of either the reference model or a specialisation parent archetype, where the latter is relevant, then no constraint is needed. The change is described in http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPEC-303 We have not yet released a new version of the ADL workbench with this change, but will soon. What I would like to know is if the implementers of other archetype parsers, compilers etc can deal with this change. Note that it would normally be part of implementing the wider ADL 1.5 semantics, since it is logically part of the specialisation semantics. has anyone else considered implementing these semantics yet? thanks - thomas beale _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090703/6a004da5/attachment.html>
