Great! BTW, it will be really useful to have multi-model tools. I was thinking if multi-model apps could be also useful, e.g. to have different persistent structures. My guess is that app can implement one "canonical" model (e.g. openEHR RM) and then map to other models e.g. for instance transformation and output purposes. My idea: what do you think about creating some kind of "mapping language", to specify correspondences between BMM models? (e.g. using semantic mappings/relationships to tell if one class in model A is equivalent/more generic/more specific/... to other class in model B). There are many kinds of semantic correspondence between models, e.g. a class in one model can map to a property in another model, etc... The idea behind that is that using the mapping information and an input instance schema (in the canonical model), and maybe some input or cursomization from the user/designer, a complete transformation definition can be created, so automatic transformation from an instance in the canonical model to some output model (13606, CDA, ...) can be done. Is this idea to crazy or do you think it can be useful to have something like that?Anyone is working on something like that? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 16:07:08 +0100 From: [email protected] To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: About openEHR BMM On 01/05/2013 14:48, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, having a small spec would be great, thanks! BTW, does anyone use XML representation of UML diagrams to process class models? wait time <= 5 days - thomas _______________________________________________ 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/20130501/1c5ce1f6/attachment.html>
