I currently don't have the norm with me, I'll check it on Monday morning. Second case looks like a typo on the schema, thanks for pointing it out. We will check it and correct it. We created a 13606 XML Schema (because there was none available) trying to follow the specifications (as we also did with openEHR demographic model). You can find both through linkEHR website. Just notice that those are not official XML schemas yet.
I don't know the consensus about naming on the standard, as I'm just a user of it :) However using CamelCase is preferred in most programming languages as when you print code the underscore can be confused with '-' (and also, is faster to write CamelCase variables ;) I personally prefer CamelCase. I agree it would look prettier if everything had the same case, but as you know in 99% of the specifications this is mixed. This kind of problems has given us a lot of problems when using ADL to work with other models like HL7 CDA or CDISC ODM, where there isn't any kind of rule (for example, in ADL CLASSES must be upercase and the attributes lowercase, and in CDA this is not true) 2011/9/9 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > > David, Diego, > > I just tried to compile the archetype > CEN-DEMOGRAPHIC-IDENTIFIED_HEALTHCARE_PROFESSIONAL.HCP_Dispenser.v1 in the > ADL Workbench... I had to make a few changes: > > IDENTIFIED_HEALTHCARE_PROFESSIONAL has an attribute 'scopingOrganisation' in > the standard, but the archetype had 'scoping_organisation' (the standard > bizarrely mixes camelCase and underscore_form) > HEALTHCARE_PROFESSIONAL_ROLE has an attribute 'specialty' in the standard, > but it was called 'speciality' in the archetype (admittedly an easy > confusion in English) > > At the moment, the version of the 13606 and 21090 schemas available inthe > openEHR SVN has the strange mix of attribute name styles in the published > standard. The archetypes have used a consistent naming approach - the > more_readable_form, from my point of view. What is the consensus on this > aspect of the standard? Do we follow it slavishly or use a modified variant, > as you have presumably done for your epSOS work? > > It may be that my copy of 13606 is out of date, and was superseded by some > later update - I have a version from 2006-06-13. Were there later changes? > > - thomas > > > On 09/09/2011 19:04, David Moner wrote: > > Thomas, > > Could you please clarify this sentence? > > I'm the main author of that document. As you said, it is a 45 pages document > of which only two and a half are a summary description of ADL to understand > the proposed archetypes. And only there we can see some examples of ADL > structures (yes, openEHR ones) taken directly from EN13606-2, which is the > norm referenced at the document, and not from the openEHR specifications. > > I really think that your affirmation is misleading and unfair. > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
