On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 09:56 +0200, Gerard Freriks wrote: > Hi, > > > While we are at it. > > > -1- > Why do we need a TDD? > Isn't a Template just a Composition archetype with Sections archetypes > and ENTRY archetypes and Cluster archetypes and Element archetypes > plus data types. With ADL 1.5, yes I believe.
> In addition as many possible degrees of freedom need to be constrained > so as to reflect the agreement between the two exchanging actors. > In all aspects they rare nothing but an archetype in my part of the > world. Ok > The peculiar thing about templates is that they are for prime time > actual use/deployment. What's peculiar about that? > > -2- > Transformations: > The Template (archetype) has node names changed in places (and > therefor their meaning). No, these are (should be) just two alternative serializations of the same meaning. However, what constitutes the meaning of an archetype is not a trivial question. > They are more complex in places (because new branches) have been > added, less complex in places (because branches are not used), more > constrained in places than the pure parent archetype. Here I must confess I don't understand your use of the word "complex". E.g. if there in an openEHR model is two specific named events in an observation which are expanded in the TDD (isn't it??) does this increase or decrease complexity? > > > To write generic transformations is not trivial, I expect. > If possible at all. I do not agree. I believe this is what every implementer necessarily has to do, to provide a two-way transformation between a canonical form and any serialization and/or persistence form with a different set of requirements (query performance, OLTP vs. OLAP, space requirements, legacy systems integration, etc. etc. etc.). Not trivial but done on a regular basis. Cheers, Daniel > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > gfrer at luna.nl > > On 14 jun. 2013, at 09:41, Daniel Karlsson <Daniel.Karlsson at liu.se> > wrote: > > > Hi Ian, > > > > On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 10:34 +0100, Ian McNicoll wrote: > > > Hi Erik, > > > > > > > > > The Ocean TDD->canonical transform is available at > > > > > > > > > http://openehr.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#176376 > > > > > > > > > > > > look for TDD_to_openEHR.xsl > > > > > > > > > As far as I know a generic reverse transform is not possible. > > > > How could that be? Is there something in the TDD format that is not > > in > > the RM format? The intuition tells me that it should be easier going > > from the rich RM format to the TDD format than in the opposite > > direction. What are the specific issues that make a reverse > > transformation problematic? Could anything be changed to make the > > transformation possible? > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
