On 01/02/2019 14:53, Pieter Bos wrote:

About the calculation:

Ah, I see, the assignment seems like a good solution. But why would I need a function to calculate a score that is just a sum of a number of values, instead of a few +-operators?

well you might want to re-use that function. More generally, some functions are more interesting, e.g. MAP calculation, and it is potentially better to a) name them, b) declare them in a more obvious place and c) make them re-usable.

Multiplicities/data binding:

The there exists case is clear. However, what if I have four events, all having four elements, each with dv_quantity as value. Say I want the magnitude of the last of these quantities to be larger than the sum of the first three. Before I could write something like:

for_all $event in /data/events[id3]
     $event/data/items/element[id6]/value/magnitude >
        $event/data/items/element[id4]/value/magnitude +
        $event/data/items/element[id5]/value/magnitude +

Assuming you meant to put 'id7' as the first one, I don't understand what this achieves beyond just:

/events[id2]/data/items/element[id7]/value/magnitude >
        /events[id2]/data/items/element[id4]/value/magnitude +
        /events[id2]/data/items/element[id5]/value/magnitude +

which says the same thing, for all events in the runtime data that conform to the /events[id2] branch of the structure.

If we were to allow the expression for_all $event in /data/events[id3] then we need to be clear on what it means: it actually refers to an object of type List<EVENT>, but do the members consist of EVENT objects found in data at the moment the expression is evaluated? Or just the statically defined members in the archetype - which can also be multiple, e.g. see the Apgar archetype, it has 1 min, 2 min, 5 min events?

Normally we want the processing of 'rules' expressions in archetypes to apply to the data when the archetype is being used in its normal role of creation / semantic validation at data commit time. So it seems to me that if we want to support expressions like the above, we need to be able to do something like (don't worry about the concrete syntax too much, could easily be TS or java-flavoured):



    $xxx_events: List<EVENT>
    $item_aaa, $item_bbb, $item_ccc, $item_ddd: Real


    check for_all event in $xxx_events:
        event/$item_aaa > event/$item_bbb + event/$item_ccc + event/$item_ddd

*data_bindings* -- pseudo-code for now

$xxx_events -> /events[id2]
$item_aaa -> /data/items/element[id7]/value/magnitude
$item_bbb -> /data/items/element[id4]/value/magnitude
$item_ccc -> /data/items/element[id5]/value/magnitude
$item_ddd -> /data/items/element[id6]/value/magnitude

I don't know what this archetype is, so assume that $xxx_events, $item_aaa etc are more meaningful names.

The next problem you mentioned is:

PB: Note that a path that points to a single typed dvquantity in an archetype can still point to many items in the RM if somewhere up the tree there is a list or a set, for example more than one observation

So I think this implies an incorrect interpretation of this kind of code within an archetype. It can't be understood as simultaneously applying to multiple Observations if it is within an Observation archetype, only to one OBSERVATION instance at a time - usually one about to be committed.

You can still have Lists of things internal to the archetype, as shown above with the Events list, but to process the multiplicity, you would need to do as we have done and use for_all, or some other container-aware operator or function.

Anyway, does this get closer to the sense of what you would like to do? It's more than I had conceived of, so this is a useful challenge...

- thomas

openEHR-technical mailing list

Reply via email to