Hi Diego This was the result of some overzealous efforts in the past (designed to make XML look verbose :-). The discussion has been about the fact that Occurrences does not need an includelower/upper and unbounded is not necessary as it can never be a constraint statement.
The expression is new to me... Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- > bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Diego Bosc? > Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2012 1:18 AM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Does XMLSerializer (java) create archetype slots with too much > extra information? > > This is a simple question: Why does a simple archetype slot like this > (ADL) > > allow_archetype ELEMENT[at0001] occurrences matches {0..*} matches { > -- Archetype slot > include > archetype_id/value matches {/.*/} > } > > ends up like this? > > <children xsi:type="ARCHETYPE_SLOT"> > <rm_type_name>ELEMENT</rm_type_name> > <occurrences> > <lower_included>true</lower_included> > <upper_included>false</upper_included> > <lower_unbounded>false</lower_unbounded> > <upper_unbounded>true</upper_unbounded> > <lower>0</lower> > </occurrences> > <node_id>at0001</node_id> > <includes> > <tag /> > <string_expression>archetype_id/value matches > {/.*/}</string_expression> > <expression xsi:type="EXPR_BINARY_OPERATOR"> > <type>BOOLEAN</type> > <operator>2007</operator> > <precedence_overridden>false</precedence_overridden> > <left_operand xsi:type="EXPR_LEAF"> > <type>STRING</type> > <item xsi:type="xsd:string">archetype_id/value</item> > <reference_type>CONSTANT</reference_type> > </left_operand> > <right_operand xsi:type="EXPR_LEAF"> > <type>String</type> > <item xsi:type="C_STRING"> > <pattern>.*</pattern> > </item> > <reference_type>CONSTANT</reference_type> > </right_operand> > </expression> > </includes> > > I'm not complaining about the ultra-verbose occurrences (surely can be > improved, but there was already a discussion about this on this > mailing list). > I don't get the point of putting the 'expression' tags on this case. > It's like putting the same thing twice. > Is the 'operator' tag supposed to be understandable? > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
