On 05/04/2013 13:03, Thomas Beale wrote: > > [original post by Tim bounced; reposting manually for him] > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> if you mean the competing inheritance models - I have yet to meet any XML >> specialist who thinks they work. The maths are against it. >> > Interesting that you, the creator of a technology that makes many > people very uncomfortable (multi-level modelling), thinks that > conventional users of XML have something to say regarding XML as a > multi-level implementation. Confusing.
not sure what you want to say here! >> Can you point to some MLHIM models that show specialisation, redefinition, >> clarity of expression, that sort of thing? I tried to find some but ran into >> raw XML source. > There is no need for specialisation or redefinition in MLHIM. Concept > Constraint Definitions (CCDS) are immutable once published. In > conjunction with their included Reference Model version they endure in > order to remain as the model for that instance data. Unlike you, I > believe that the ability to read and validate XML data will be around > for a looooong time to come. There is simply too much of it for it to > go away anytime soon. When it does go away, there will ways to > translate it to whatever comes next. Such as there is today. I don't disagree with that obviously. All openEHR systems I am aware of process XML data routinely, including HL7v2 data, and CDAs. But if you say there is no need for specialisation or redefinition it means there is no re-use to speak of - every model is its own thing. This is a major departure from the archetype approach, which is founded upon model reuse and adaptation. >> so does openEHR, that's what namespaces are about. If two groups both define >> a 'blood pressure' archetype today, there is an immediate problem. In the >> future with namespaced ids, the problem becomes manageable, since both forms >> can co-exist. >> > Thanks for confirming this problem, for today. I hope that people > realize the potential issues that they are creating by operating > outside of the eco-system. I also hope that whenever, 'the future', > arrives that people will understand that the need to use this > namespace capability. Are there estimates yet as to when the future > will arrive? > Now more or less. New versions of the documents are being published imminently, and the tooling is catching up to namespaces (also other things like annotations). - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130405/4753ad75/attachment.html>
