Diego Bosc? wrote: > And again not that difficult to support both kind of bindings. In my > opinion, <ORGANIZATIONXXXXX::DrugFormSubset> is way more human > readable and needs the same degree of 'computer interpretation' than > the URI <terminology:...>
I would agree that the <TERMINOLOGY::subset> form may be more legible to humans. For computer interpretation, however, it would be a big problem. How would an ADL parser know whether the value of the constraint binding was a URI or not? The ADL ontology section is a serialisation of the ontology AOM. Page 78 of http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/aom1.5.pdf specifies that the ARCHETYPE_ONTOLOGY class's constraint_bindings attribute contains DV_URI objects. This proposed <TERMINOLOGY::subset> form is not a serialisation of a DV_URI, so the specification would have to be changed somehow or other. I doubt that the resulting serialisation would be the just a matter of putting a <TERMINOLOGY::subset> where currently we have a URI. There would have to be some way of identifying whether it's a DV_URI or not. This would complicate the ADL, probably not making it so nice for humans to read after all. But supposing that this did get done, and the ADL parsers were able to differentiate whether it's a DV_URI or not. We still wouldn't have solved all of the problems for computer interpretation, because all tools which currently know how to deal with DV_URIs in the constraint bindings would now have to cope with the possibility of some other class of object. Not only would software that is currently working have to be upgraded, the resulting software would be somewhat more complicated than it is today. - Peter
