On 16/07/2018 14:56, Bert Verhees wrote:
On 16-07-18 14:55, Thomas Beale wrote:
well some templates are being slowly added to the international CKM
and other CKMs, but generally, templates are what local users and
vendors create themselves. Since they don't break archetypes, it is
safe to create them according to your own data-set needs.
That is true, but isn't the same true for AQL? AQL is able to do
things which templates are not so well designed for, like scanning
over datasets of more patients in a single query. Maybe both,
templates and AQL are necessary/usable.
Yes, we need to treat AQL queries and query sets more like model
artefacts, no doubt about that.
But again, the starting point must be the API's defined, maybe in a
transformerable language like swagger, which seems to connect well to
the OpenAPI initiative.(I never liked swagger much, but my last
experience with it was from years ago, maybe it is better now)
And then you mentioned BMM, I don't know about that. I should look at
it, I saw your other email. Do you have somewhere a document why BMM
is so good?
well whether it is 'so good' is in the eye of the beholder, but it is
'good enough' for quite a lot of things, things for which we would once
have expected to be able to use XMI. Anyway, the BMM introduction
<https://www.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/bmm/bmm.html#_introduction>
provides some information on why it is there.
- thomas
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
