Oh sigh... Trying to be open minded, thinking a few steps ahead, sharing thoughts and regularly reevaluating design decisions does not seem to be appreciated by all on this list.
Perhaps we need to mark some discussions or sections with... [Warning: may contain new thoughts] ...so that those of us that enjoy such discussions may continue to have them and those that get distracted by them or can't stand them could filter out those parts. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 22:23, Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > Yeah I was also wondering what is the driver/motivation/aspiration > behind using JSON, YAML etc. instead of good old ADL? > Good old which ADL? Please go back in the thread and note the difference between dADL and cADL in the reasoning, dADL is a reinvention of the wheel (object tree serialization) cADL is an optimized DSL that I have not seen any obvious widespread alternative to if brevity and readability is sought for. Regarding the motivation you ask for, I would recommend going back in the thread again to the first message... http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg06186.html ...under the boldface heading "*Motivation:*", that you may have missed, and read the three bullet points. You may not agree but that and the rest of this current message might reduce your wondering about the discussion origins. I also think that we as a community should look at getting more organised > and get our efforts in tune > Yes, a bit of diversity is good in order to best explore design space, but duplicating work is a waste of time. If we are allowed to discuss future-directed thoughts on this list (without people getting too upset) that may also help us tune our efforts. If we must implement first and then discuss it will be a lot harder to avoid duplication of work. as I know that quite interesting and though times are about to come? > Are you referring to the CIMI-discusions or is it a general observation about how the future usually is :-) Regarding CIMI I think it is valuable to try to look upon openEHR with the eyes of newcomers. If there is unnecessary legacy in models or formats that we don't easily see because we have gotten used to it, then now is a good time to try reducing it while the amount of patient data using openEHR is limited. It will be harder to change things later. Getting the template formalism integrated with the AOM 1.5 was great in this sense, and so is Tom's experimentation with RM 2.0 constructs that may reduce the ITEM_STRUCTURE hierarchy. > *From:* ... *On Behalf Of *Stef Verlinden ** > > +1 > +/- infinity Yay, I love flame wars :-) On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:44, Seref Arikan < serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote: > Given this, if you or someone else thinks that YAML can be an alternative > to dADL, there is nothing stopping anyone than implementing it and using > it. Absolutely nothing. Do you assume that if somebody is talking about a subject, then they can't possibly be in the middle of implementing it and wanting to share thoughts at an early stage? Please try to be a bit more open minded, I did not ask * you* to be the first to implement YAML support. You are not the the only one implementing openEHR stuff, but I will admit that you deserve credit for, and are great at "release early, release often" and I am not (yet). > Thomas is heroically responding to all queries without judgement... I think that is an unfair description of Tom's judgment. I have a feeling that all these discussions about if this or that could > replace dADL are too hypothetical. Most of the time they are academic > discussions. There is nothing wrong with academic discussions, I am doing a > PhD here, but if the openEHR community is spending its time and resources > for academic discussions which do not necessarily connect to real life > implementations in the near term, then I think we have a problem. So if something is not on your personal implementation agenda in near time, then it is "academic" and a waste of resources since it can not possibly be on the implementation agenda of somebody else... :-) The reason I started looking into both JSON and YAML is that they are part of our current implementation (partly using JSON, Javascript etc) (primarily for RM objects) in this process I happened to see that YAML might do the job of dADL and that we then we could reuse parser/serializer work of others (for many programming languages) instead of maintaining dADL frameworks. I wanted to share this thought at an early stage and I do appreciate that some have at least responded with positive interest and curiosity. Sometimes time can be saved by discussion before implementation, especially carefully considering what should or should not be implemented. People at UCL or Ocean Informatics can probably regularly speak in person to core openEHR decision makers and designers, the rest of as have the mailing lists as major channels, please try to respect that too. Please do not get me wrong, all the discussion we are having here is > useful, it is just that in my humble opinion, some discussions are more > useful than others if this standard into which I am heavily investing is to > go forward. You are not the only one having invested a lot of years and work in openEHR. I would ask you and others to please allow those that want to discuss things before and during implementation to do so if they wish to. Regarding YAML the p.s. on the start message of this thread said: P.s. Tom Beale and I sort of started a brief off-list discussion about > YAML, here is now an attempt to get input from more people. I think it is better for the openEHR community to have things that are of potential interest to others, even things that are not yet tested, as on-list discussions rather then off-list discussions, but I am not longer sure everyone agrees and this is a bit worrying to me. I do still think there is enough people appreciating early open discussions and will try to continue along that path but try to remember tagging such sections with [Warning: may contain new thoughts] :-) Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 P.s. [Warning: may contain new thoughts] I suspect a current off-list discussion of scalable distributed alternatives to the CKM based on GIT might be unwelcome on the list too and it might be better to keep off-list for a long time until it has been at least partially tested some time in the distant future, since there are other things (like releasing other software) that need to be prioritized first before we have time to test anything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111207/35b65441/attachment.html>
