Hi David, I saw the BMM format mentioned on previous threads, but I really 
don't know what it is or where it came from. 
Searching on the web, BMM is almost unknown (there is the OMG Business 
Motivation Model), so I think the BMM is something developed by Ocean or by 
CIMI partners (?).
Anyone knows where is the spec of the format? It would be nice to understand 
what BMM in order to participate on these threads.
Thanks!
-- 
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
http://cabolabs.com

From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:33:08 +0200
Subject: About openEHR BMM
To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org

Hello all,
We have just implemented the support of Basic Meta Model files (BMM) in LinkEHR 
Editor as a format to import new reference models into the tool.


First of all, I think that it is necessary to clarify some erroneous ideas or 
misunderstandings about LinkEHR that have been recently published. Until now, 
LinkEHR used XML Schema as an input format to define reference models. It is 
analyzed to create the internal information structures needed to edit 
archetypes based in that model. Internally, LinkEHR follows a pure 
implementation of the AOM 1.4 model so that the only limits of the tool are 
what can be expressed as an archetype.




The decision to support XML Schema as an input format is based on the fact that 
many reference models are only or normatively expressed in that way (for 
example HL7 CDA, HL7 CCD or CDISC ODM). This has nothing to do with the 
discussion about the expressiveness of the XML Schema language, but just a 
solution needed to support some daily used and well established models such as 
CDA.




That said, we decided to implement the support of BMM definitions as an 
additional input format to XML Schema, in order to extend the possibilities of 
the tool. That implementation took around three days and the only problems came 
from the interpretation of the BMM format. Some doubts arose and we want to 
share them for discussion.




- Schema identification. This is just a curiosity. The BMM identification 
includes the following information. It is curious that here the RM release is 
required as part of the identification schema (which is completely logical), 
but it is not used for the generation of the archetype identifier or archetype 
header to make its localization safer, as we have requested some time in the 
past 
(http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2011-April/005943.html).


rm_publisher = <"openehr">
schema_name = <"rm">rm_release = <"1.0.2">
- Order of the properties. It is not specified if there is an order of 
appearance of all reserved words and sections of the BMM. Depending on this, 
the implementation strategy of the parser varies. Is the order relevant? We 
assumed that it is relevant for the header sections, but it is not at the 
definition of the classes.



- Cardinality property of Single attributes. Testing the CIMI BMM we have found 
several places where a P_BMM_SINGLE_PROPERTY had a "cardinality" property 
defined. We interpreted that as an error, since a monovalued attribute has no 
cardinality.


- Is_abstract as string. Also at the CIMI model we found several definitions as 
is_abstract = <"True">. We interpreted it as an error since it should be a 
boolean value without double quotes.



- Definition of generic properties. They are defined by using the 
P_BMM_GENERIC_PROPERTY reserved word. What it is not clear is if those 
properties can be SINGLE or CONTAINER ones. In other words, is it possible to 
define a container attribute(with its cardinality) of the type GENERIC_PROPERTY?


- Generic_parameters property of P_BMM_GENERIC_PROPERTY should be a list. Since 
a generic class can be defined to support one or more parameters, the 
"generic_parameters" used when that class is called should be defined as a list 
of strings. Currently, all examples define it as a single string value.


- Need of visualization information. There are two properties defined related 
to visualization of the model. The archetype_data_value_parent_class property 
is defined at the documentation as "a base class from the Reference Model whose 
descendants are considered to be 'logical data types [...] is only used to help 
tooling provide more intelligent display". The 
archetype_visualise_descendants_of property is used to "designate a class whose 
descendants should be made visible in tree and grid renderings of the archetype 
definition". In order to repeat some of the problems of existing model 
representation, such as XMI, we should avoid polluting the pure RM definition 
from visualization or user-oriented metainformation. At the end that only 
complicates the BMM format. The representation of that metainformation should 
not be part of the BMM requirements.



We have uploaded the JavaCC specification of the BMM grammar to the openEHR 
wiki: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/BMM+grammar+and+parsers

Feel free to use or modify it.
David




-- 
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)


_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org   
                                  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130430/594f0272/attachment.html>

Reply via email to