I repost this discussion from the java implementation list, I think it
could be interesting to get feedback from the general implementers
community.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Beale <[email protected]>
Date: 2014-04-02 12:51 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Invalid language codes in languages codeset
To: ref_impl_java at lists.openehr.org



I have not been following closely here, but I think the general approach
should be that you perform a *design time *validation pass, that reports
things like language incompatibility, i.e. never let there be ambiguity
close to runtime.

The question then is: how does the validation of this particular thing
work? The first thing to note is that the possible slot fillers of a given
slot in an archetype are only those that are found in the current *working
set *of archetypes, not some theoretical maximum set (e.g. all of CKM or
all Spanish MOH etc). So, within a chosen working set, validation on
language compatibilty can probably only occur at the point of operational
template (OPT) generation, i.e. where the user specifies which actual
languages and terminologies (for terminology bindings) should be used, then
a tool could run a relatively simple test to see that all archetypes in the
working set do have translations in the chosen language(s).

One could imagine more complex validations to do with figuring out of all
slot-filling archetypes have any language in common with slot-defining
archetypes, but I don't think this is useful.

I have no check like this in the ADL Workbench yet, so I am interested to
know what others think it should be.

We don't really have a proper definition of 'working set' or other possible
'sets' of archetypes, but we probably need them. Getting a common
definition means everyone agreeing on a standard workflow for archetype
development, and possible ideas like defining a 'deployment set' from a
larger 'working set', or maybe a publisher's 'release set'.

- thomas


On 02/04/2014 11:33, Diego Bosc? wrote:

Just today we had another interesting discussion on a related topic
about languages, translations, and slot solving.
The problem comes when you have an archetype whose original language
is different from the one that you are solving the slot with. There
are several alternatives, but seems that there is no 'perfect' one.

There is always the possibility of taking the original language of the
solved slot archetype and just add it to the original archetype as a
translation, marking the strings in the other languages in some way.

This is related to the languages codes as we could assume that a slot
with an 'en-gb' can be safely placed in a 'en' archetype and reuse all
the texts and descriptions. The problem comes the other way around
(can we assume that a 'en' slot can be safely placed in a 'en-gb'
archetype?).

Even if you have the same language in both archetypes, we have to
consider if a translation from a slot has the same validity to be
included in the original language descriptions of an given archetype
(In theory, all translations should be made from the original
language, and if the original language was another one, can we assure
that the meaning is the same as the original?)

Anyone of the list has been dealing with this problem? Which solutions
have you adopted for your tools/systems?



-- 
  [image: Ocean Informatics] <http://www.oceaninformatics.com/>
*Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer*
+44 7792 403 613   Specification Program, *open*EHR<http://www.openehr.org/>
Honorary Research Fellow, UCL <http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS <http://www.bcs.org.uk/>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/category/health-informatics/>   [image:
View Thomas Beale's profile on LinkedIn]
<http://uk.linkedin.com/in/thomasbeale>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140402/25db87f3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: btn_liprofile_blue_80x15.png
Type: image/png
Size: 511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140402/25db87f3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ocean_full_small.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4085 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140402/25db87f3/attachment.jpg>

Reply via email to