On 09/11/2010 00:37, Grahame Grieve wrote: > >> There is no escaping from the fact that having a type called 'Any' >> representing a concept that should be called something like 'AnyDataValue' >> (in openEHR it is DV_ANY) is annoying and has to be dealt with in some way. > really? You've not heard of namespacing? It would make that much difference > to you to prefix all or some of the types with "DV_" or something? Surely not. > Did you read the discussion in ISO 21090 about this point? (It was written > specifically for you) (and btw, in my implementation, I did end up prefixing > the names, for purely programming reasons)
obviously I know about namespacing... as I mentioned earlier, it is not me personally who is generally trying to interpret the standard in contexts where it is being used. >> change UML). I fail to see why standards in e-health have to be done in >> such a bizarre way. There is nothing special about e-health requiring that. > you changed the sense. Your original claim was that standards should just > pick something that works well enough. My point is that ICT vertical > interoperability standards don't work like that, including in health. > > As Ann pointed out, not everyone uses normal OO modelling, and for > a variety of reasons. In fact, big companies are starting to move on - have > you seen M (microsoft oslo)? > > I happen to think that design by constraint - which is the fundamental > pattern of both v3 and openEHR - is irretrievably busted, and it's time well there is the HL7v3 way of doing it, which I agree is irretrievably broken, but the archetype formalism works differently: it leaves the reference model intact, so that all data always conform to the one reference model for all time. > for us both to move on and find something better. (But perhaps we should > spend some time implementing in the real world before we do that...) > > I'm watching M closely to see if a realistic alternative emerges there. > It hasn't yet. And the alternative is to talk to OMG to talk about getting > UML changed. But it's odd to have the pot call the kettle black, since > ADL is hardly standard UML. see other post: this is a misunderstanding. HL7 asked OMG to change UML itself; openEHR has no need of that.* * - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101109/c20d1bbf/attachment.html>
