On 07/12/2011, at 22:54, Seref Arikan wrote: > Your comments about dADL below, as well as your original motivations is > hinting at what I'm opposing to. Your own words: > "Having an archetype specific object-serialization language like dADL might > make "archetyping" look more mysterious and suspect and might hide the fact > that the semantics expressed in the AOM is the interesting thing that can be > serialised in many different ways." > > This is a negative statement about ADL, right?
I don't think so, Seref. It's a negative about dADL ... not ADL per se. Going back to Erik's original post ... http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg06187.html ... it's pretty clear that he is _not_ suggesting that YAML should replace ADL: "... Also note that the current suggestion only aims at looking for replacement of dADL not cADL. Also note that the AOM and XML serialisations of the AOM are not affected by this suggestion." Now I think Erik made a typo in that last sentence. I don't know what an "AOM serialisation of the AOM" would be. I assume that Erik meant to say that "ADL and XML serialisations of the AOM are not affected by this suggestion." Seref also wrote: > Let us try to eliminate the misunderstanding at this point: > > If this discussion concludes with the common view that yaml can be an > alternative to dADL, do you think openEHR specification should replace ADL? > If the answer to the previous question is yes, then do you realize that this > would mean replacing all the software that uses ADL, both open source and > proprietary ? In response to the first question, I would say no. If YAML replaced dADL as a serialisation format, it wouldn't imply replacement of ADL too. And so, in response to your second question, I'd argue that it wouldn't imply replacing any software at all that currently uses ADL. The only software that would have to be replaced is anything currently doing serialisation with dADL ... which would be nothing yet, as far as I'm aware. - Peter
