2012/3/22 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > Instead, I think we should re-invigorate the Java Implementation > Technology Spec, that Rong wrote originally some years ago, to provide Java > implementation guidance for issues like this. All target implementation > technologies have their issues; if we keep hacking the primary specfication > model to suit all of them, we will no longer have any clear statement at > all of what we really wanted in the first place, and it would in any case > probably be a very weak model, once you accommodate no generics, no > multiple inheritance, no typing, ....!
I was exaclty thinking about this while seeing this proposal for the ITEM_STRUCTURE change to a VALUE_CLUSTER: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+2.x+RM+proposals+-+lower+information+model#openEHR2.xRMproposals-lowerinformationmodel-CandidateA.1AddVALUECLUSTER%2CRemoveITEMSTRUCTUREtypes It is an example of multiple inheritance not supported by Java and some other languages. I agree with you that a programming language limitation cannot be imposed to a good model design, but it is also true that for example Java is not a minor language to forget of. There should be a balance between what it is perfectly modelled and what can be implemented by most. -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120322/35ce4106/attachment.html>
