and if you want to express something like 'a set with all the past test results for this patient' (that could have none)? it would be a constraint as you are only allowing some kinds of entries (children of a certain Snomed code for example)
2011/12/5 Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com>: > Hi All > > > > I am going to say it once more: > > > > If there is an expression on occurrences of ?0..*? anywhere in ADL then it > is an error, for that is not a constraint ? and can only be wrong (ie the RM > may have a narrower constraint). We just need a max int and a min int ? both > optional. > > > > I won?t say it again ? but it does keep it simple and it is correct! > > > > Cheers, Sam > > > > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heath Frankel > Sent: Monday, 5 December 2011 8:40 AM > > > To: 'For openEHR technical discussions' > Subject: RE: Could YAML replace dADL as human readable AOM serialization > format? > > > > I think previously I had indicated I had no problem with the stringified > interval approach in XML, but I am reverting my thinking on this and feel > that it would be counter intuitive for those who what to use the XML schemas > for code generation purposes.? I think in this case the computable > requirement outweighs the human readable requirement.? I think we can come > up with a much more concise representation of these intervals without > compromising the computable requirement, something similar to XML schema > maxOccurs/minOccurs. > > > > Heath > > > > please everyone remember that the dADL, JSON and XML generated from AWB all > currently use the stringified expression of cardinality / occurrences / > existence. Now, these are usually the most numerous constraints in an > archetype and if expressed in the orthodox way, take up 6 lines of text, > hence the giant files (e.g. AOM 1.4 based XML we currently use) - and thus > the much reduced files you see on Erik's page, because we are using ADL 1.5 > flavoured serialisations not the ADL 1.4 one. > > Now, I think we should probably go with the stringified form in all of these > formalisms. The cost of doing this is a small micro-parser, but it is the > same microparser for everyone, which seems attractive to me. > > The alternative that Erik mentioned was more native, but still efficient > interval expressions, e.g. dADL has it built in (0..* is |>=0| in dADL), and > YAML and JSON could probably be persuaded to make some sort of array of > integer-like things be used. XML still doesn't have any such support. In > theory this approach would be the best if each syntax supported it properly, > but XML doesn't at all, and the others don't support Intervals with > unbounded upper limit (i.e. the '*' in '0..*'). > > But Erik's exercise certainly proved that efficient representation of the > humble Interval <Integer> is actually worthwhile. (Once again thanks for > that page, its quite a good way to get a good feel for these syntaxes very > quickly). > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
