all, one of the good decisions I think we made early on in openEHR's history was to have few mailing lists rather than many. One of the consequences is that discussions about new / fun ideas are on the same list and sometimes same thread as discussions about real world implementation priorities. Please continue to enjoy :)
- thomas On 07/12/2011 12:54, Seref Arikan wrote: > Erik, > Add my sigh next to yours... Lots of misunderstandings, will try to > respond to most obvious ones. > > I have clearly expressed that all discussions here are useful. I've > made no connection to my agenda. My academic work does not even > require the things I've mentioned as high priority for openEHR. I've > been enjoying the discussions, and will continue to do so. > > 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? Nothing wrong with > negative statements with ADL, I have a bunch of them in my pocket. But > if this is your motivation to discuss YAML, and if the thread you've > started is about "replacing adl", you're talking about replacing > something that has taken lots of time and effort to create. This is > where we have our difference, I agree with many of the criticisms of > ADL, and it is exactly at this point I try to be open minded. I can > see that there are also significant advantages of ADL, and rather than > suggesting that is replaced, I first hypothesize and then go ahead and > prove that it can co exist with xml, json, yaml etc. My work is out > there showing that adl can co exist alongside with these formalisms. > From my point of view, this is quite an open minded approach, at least > more open minded than replacing it, without considering what it would > actually mean in other contexts. > > This is not the first time I'm having these types of discussions, and > won't be the last. I make my point whenever I see a discussion that > seems to suggest switching horses midstream. I'm sorry if I'm being a > buzz killer, but I'm in favor of discussing things in a larger > context, including consequences for the openEHR standard and its > adoption. > Reminding these consequences does not mean I'm ruling out other > options. I have been discussing them in light of all the proof I have > (through my work) and I've asked others to do so. I can not know about > your work in advance, can I ? > > 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 ? > If the answer to the previous question is yes, then do you have a > suggestion for funding these changes? > > I think this is the best I can do to explain what I'm trying to > include in the discussions. > > Best regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111207/42f5947e/attachment.html>
