David, This <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+2.x+RM+proposals+-+lower+information+model#openEHR2.xRMproposals-lowerinformationmodel-CandidateA.2ModifyCLUSTERtohavelocalvalue> is what I would realistically propose, for the CLUSTER/ELEMENT part of the model. I will also post a version with integrated changes - this change, plus the simplification of ITEM_STRUCTURE etc.
- thomas On 22/03/2012 13:56, David Moner wrote: > > > 2012/3/22 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > <mailto: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. > > > * > * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120326/a0dd4fa6/attachment.html>
