On 08/27/2013 07:20 PM, Diego Bosc? wrote: > Do we need at-codes when > we create siblings such as DV_TEXT and DV_CODED_TEXT? In which circumstance can a sibling occur of a DataValue? Certainly not in an ELEMENT. I either cannot imagine another circumstance.
So why use a node-value? Write a nodeId if you want, it is not very interesting. The problem is another. It annoys me quite some time, this issue, not if you use a nodeId or not, or if your archetype-editor does or does not. ***I would say, make it optional, configurable**** But what is the case? The problem is that there are two main archetype editors. One creates nodeIds in DataValues, and the other does not. The designers have apparently a different opinion on this. Sometimes the editors crash/choke on the ADL construct the other delivers. And even when they do not choke, when you change one letter in an archetype, maybe in the ontology.... What happens? The editor quickly removes/adds the nodeIds on all DataValues. (one does this, the other does that) This makes it impossible to work with them both. Ity makes it hard it exchange archetypes with other people. ------------------ It looks very much alike the Document-format battle we have on this world for years now, Word vs WordPerfect vs OpenOffice. Even ISO standards did not solve this. Why is that? What is behind this? Competition? ------------------ Coming back to archetype editors? Why change other parts of an archetype if someone wants to save a very small change. I really gave up complaining about this, and I often use text-editors for writing archetypes. At least, they do what I want them to do. So hey, we are living in 2013, it should not be that way. Please think about the users, the customers, do what they want you to do, and make it configurable. All problems are solved then. Thanks Bert
