Compact serialization? When nodes in the archetype while they are developed and can change in the 'template' level or even during run-time, there never will be a simple serialization to an XML/XDS format. To much is volatile.
When you say ' more compact serialization formats' do you mean shorter XML payload that go ver the wire? Observe that when parties decide to be semantically interoperable this means that every data point and all its context needs to be sent over the wire. Full semantic interoperability demands more resources than just updating fields in a database. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 14 jun. 2013, at 13:01, Daniel Karlsson <Daniel.Karlsson at liu.se> wrote: >> >> When specializing an archetype the name (and meaning) changes. >> When originally the Name node is ENTRY it can be changed in >> specialization to ENTRY:Observation >> Or into ENTRY:Observation:ClinicalFinding >> Or into ENTRY:Observation:ClinicalFinding:BodyTemperature > That's fine, but serializing is not specializing. Templates also allow > specializing (that is in a way what templates do) as does archetypes so > there's an overlap. But that's a separate (and important) issue. I was > asking about the possibility of having more compact serialization > formats. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130614/a9baa6e5/attachment.html>
