Diego,
See me response to this on the java mailing list.
Cheers,
Rong
On 6 January 2012 00:27, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am using XMLserializer from Java implementation
>
> 2012/1/6 Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com>:
>> Diego,
>> What tool are you using to generate your AOM XML?
>> The tool issue tracker may be a more appropriate place for these tooling
>> issues.
>> Heath
>>
>> On 05/01/2012 10:34 PM, "Diego Bosc?" <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In ADL, the assumed value of a domain type is marked like this:
>>>
>>> defining_code matches {
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[local::
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at1000, ? ? ? ? -- Standing
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at1001, ? ? ? ? -- Sitting
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at1002, ? ? ? ? -- Reclining
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at1003, ? ? ? ? -- Lying
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at1014; ? ? ? ? -- Lying with tilt to left
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?at1001] -- assumed value
>>> }
>>>
>>> but in the xml form, the assumed value is missing. The schema does not
>>> reflect this (I know it is outdated)
>>>
>>>
>>> <children xsi:type="C_CODE_PHRASE">
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<rm_type_name>CODE_PHRASE</rm_type_name>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<occurrences>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<lower_included>true</lower_included>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<upper_included>true</upper_included>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<lower_unbounded>false</lower_unbounded>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<upper_unbounded>false</upper_unbounded>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<lower>0</lower>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<upper>1</upper>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?</occurrences>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<node_id>at0009</node_id>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<terminology_id>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<value>local</value>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?</terminology_id>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<code_list>at1000</code_list>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<code_list>at1001</code_list>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<code_list>at1002</code_list>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<code_list>at1003</code_list>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<code_list>at1014</code_list>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?</children>
>>>
>>> Can we reach a quick consensus on how should this be stated? Can we
>>> use an <assumed_value> label as in all other types?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
