On 04/24/2013 06:12 PM, Timothy W. Cook wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl > <mailto:bert.verhees at rosa.nl>> wrote: > > On 04/24/2013 05:09 PM, Thomas Beale wrote: > > I am quite sure that RelaxNG or even XML Schema 1.0 will work > just fine for that solution. > > XML Schema doesn't do it, not even in 1.1 > But that is a detail. > > > It is an incorrect detail. One that I am sure there are many many > people using XML serializations of ADL archetypes will disagree with.
I don't know of the term "serialization of ADL archetypes" is correct, it leads to misunderstanding. I am talking about serialization of the AOM belonging to a specific archetypes and effectuate all constraints into an XML-schema, so that it is fit for validation an XML dataset belonging to that archetype. So it is not just serialization of the AOM, is is transforming its constraints to XML-validation. I don't no other way to make this clear. And for that purpose, XML Schema 1.1 does not offer enough flexibility, because the AOM is conceptually incompatible with the possibilities of XML-Schema. That is why you invented the GUID-thing, remember, Tim? > > I just downloaded the famous blood pressure archetype, XML > serialization, from the openEHR CKM. See, Tim, I know better, you try to fool us around. It is easy to proof to. I don't know why you do that, but to me it is obvious that you do it deliberately. You had two problems with XML-Schema, and that are the same problems that also appear when you transform AOM constraints to XML-Schema 1.1 constraints. One problem is about restriction/extension, the other is about having to Complex Types with the same name, but different content. Your traces about this are everywhere to find on the mailinglists of XML.org, Saxony, Oxygen. For example: http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic7145.html http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201209/msg00048.html Do you remember? Are we talking about something different then XML serialization, from the openEHR CKM? You do understand, because you solved the problems of XML Schema yourself with the GUIDs. See my message from a few days ago, I explained this, and I explained why you brought in the GUIDs in element-names. OK? > > Auto generated a 1.0 schema using oXygen and then auto generated > sample instance files. There are some namespace quirks that have to > be adjusted, that is all that keeps them from being valid out of the box. > > But this is not multi-level modelling. There is no reference model for > the schema to validate against. What confused me before was your use > of "RM". What you really did was create a knowledge model about wine > against the openEHR RM. > > While I do not intend to be pedantic about it, there are significant > distinctions here that need to be clarified and understood so that the > importance of multi-level modelling is well understood. Maybe others > can comment as well. But you are, but that is not important, that is your hangup, you try to be damaging. There is some similarity in data-processing, it doesn't matter if it is wine or healthcare. It was wrong to bring the example up, I thought I was under friends, understanding, etc, but of course, this is an open list. Now I have to spend time to explain the obvious. The difference is not in the kernel-data-processing. The data-processing is in the modeling, and since we are talking about two/multi-leveling modeling, my kernel keeps all options open. *That is exactly the point about two level modeling* Did you miss it for a moment? You can model health-care in it, to the complexity of OpenEHR or EN13606, or anything else, even MLHIM. I remember Rong having written a car-archetype, I borrowed it from him. ADL is not about health-care, it is, for example, also about Demographics, about Relations, it can be used inside the OpenEHR RM, in the EN13606 RM, but the AOM understands every RM, even wheels from a car can be modeled in it. It is a modeling language, and a very good one, better then XML Schema 1.1 It is about archetypes, and very useful in health-care. You know that Tim, just as you know what the problem is with XML Schema 1.1. I really have the impression that you are angry with me. Maybe because it is that I don't think your solution for the XML-Schema 1.1 problems are workable, and I talk freely about that. Maybe that annoys you, maybe you feel I am right in this. Maybe you don't feel confident. Whatever Tim, I think we should not discuss this any further, because it can easily lead to damaging persons, and for me, the whole thing isn't worth that. Have a nice day, and a nice product, I think I stop discussing with you, except when it cannot be avoided. Again, have a nice day, time for a drink, maybe, in Rio? Enjoy it. Bert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130424/afe93ff7/attachment.html>
