Thanks Peter, In that case the suggestion I'm objecting to does not exist. Though I have to confess I don't seem to clearly understand the suggestion here, better re-read the thread with more coffee at hand.
Best regards Seref On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Peter Gummer < peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111207/121f3cf5/attachment.html>
