Hi Greg, I for one read ADL. We have Java parser, and .NET people has a .NET parser. If there are others out there with technologies without a parser (Python? anyting else?) I'd like to hear it voiced as a request. Here is the reason I'd rather see ADL instead of XML: According to me, ADL is a machine processable representation for humans, and XML is a human processable representation for machines, and for some reason I find myself reading ADL from time to time.
Kind regards Seref On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Greg Caulton <caultonpos at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:16:20 +0200 >> From: hepabolu <hepabolu at gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: Issues around UI technologies and bindings to back end >> To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at openehr.org> >> Message-ID: <4A671124.7020002 at gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Seref Arikan said the following on 22/7/09 11:39: >> > Now about UI - model relationship, my view is the GUI layer is way too >> > complex and diverse to include in openEHR specifications, even a subset >> > of the UI related stuff would be enough to introduce more problems than >> > it solves. >> > IF there emerges a cross platform AND cross technology declerative >> > markup for GUI and GUI interactions and bindings, and this is a big if, >> > then it may be considered, otherwise, my personal opinion is to simply >> > > > I agree, to start integrating UI related content into the archetypes is a > very bad idea. > > Most modern UIs follow a > Model-View-Controller<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller>approach. > For PatientOS Archetypes provide the data elements. The > relationships and constraints within the archetype data elements is > implemented in our model. We have different views - fat client, web client > which are implemented through controllers written in java or javascript. > > Atttempts to push everything into the archetype definition would create a > complex beast which would defeat KISS principal. > > As a side note I also think the ADL files is hampering adoption - not for > us as there is a Java parser. Since everything that is the ADL must be > expressable in XML (otherwise interoperability of the definitions would be > problematic) - why have both - XML is ubiquitous and I think the benefits of > readibility of an ADL file is no longer needed since there are tools which > replace it - how many people read an ADL file any more? > > -- > Gregory Caulton > Principal at PatientOS Inc. > personal email: caultonpos at gmail.com > http://www.patientos.com > corporate: (888)-NBR-1EMR || fax 857.241.3022 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090723/5ef57d4d/attachment.html>
