At 01:00 PM 1/26/00 -0500, John S. Gage wrote:
>Thomas Beale wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but the important question is: where? On the way out - i.e.
> retrieval -
> > makes sense. Maybe even on the way in - as an import method (there are much
>
>History will show that "the way in" will be through standard Internet
>technologies, currently available (forms, etc.) at the time of the
>creation of the tools. Java applications that sit on clients will
>wither and die. This said by someone who loves CPRS which as best I can
>tell is a 1.5 megabyte Delphi application sitting on clients in the
>VistA system.
This is a gray area, as portions of applications can be delivered
transparently. I hope we have smarter browsers in the future than we have
today or even dynamic applications that can take on the character of a
browser but are much more general and powerful.
> > better ways to do this though); but certainly not on the database,
> except maybe
> > for archival, or some other offline purpose. One of the reasons you
> don't want it
> > in the database is that the XML whcih is used to display pieces of the
> record may
> > be different every time - due to user preferences in the request.
>
>It definitely will be different every time. I think the essential
>question is: model in XML or UML? What are your ideas about the
>advisability of each (knowing in advance that you are modeling in
>Eiffel)? The advantage of XML is that it is closely related to the
>concept of a document, which as Brian points out is very near and dear
>to medicine.
I would recommend using tools where they are designed. That means using
UML and XML where appropriate. XML is a representation of data not a
design tool. UML can be expressed in XML (using XMI) if you like.
Dave
>John Gage
