On 25/04/2013 10:20, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Very interesting thoughts Tom! > > My initial impression of the proposal is very positive. If I > understand things correctly this will enable shorter and more > readable serializations not only in ADL but also in other formalisms. > > If we consider ADL being a DSL > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_language> mainly > targeted for constraining health-related RMs then simplifications > towards that goal are welcome.
well actually I am thinking of ADL as a domain-independent formalism. Today we do have some health-IT oriented extras, but that would disappear with the proposal I am making here, and would be replaced by a) a built-in type (essentially a special kind of string) representing a terminology code, and b) the tuple constraint capability. Although the former may look like a health IT specific, I would argue that it is applicable in any industry, where there is any kind of coding going on. That surely has to be increasing. > > The only potential catch is implementation issues. Have you already > tried implementing a parser for this in some language? (If so, please > provide a link.) I guess the suggestion could make some implementation > parts easier and some a bit trickier. I haven't done anything in the ADL parser to support this, but I think it will be easy to handle for leaf level tuples. For tuples of complex objects, it will probably be harder, but I think that is of less utility anyway. The main annoyance will be re-processing existing archetypes on the fly, but that's life.... Before I do any work on it, I think it would be useful to get more feedback. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130425/9b5855ee/attachment.html>
