On Information and Interoperability
Adam, If binary standards have dried up then why is W3C producing the Efficient XML Interchange http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/? There is also ISO standard based on ASN.1 (http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/xml/finf.htm) that also produces a binary encoding of XML. Perhaps there is a need to reduce XML document size? Heath -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Flinton Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 11:21 PM To: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com; For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: On Information and Interoperability Tim Cook wrote: Hi Adam, On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 11:55 +0100, Adam Flinton wrote: Stepping outside of well supported standards increases maintenance requirements much much more. Well, I am not certain I would say much much more but in any case there are reasons why new standards are developed. Oh indeed however there are some givens wrt stds etc: A) Binary stds (esp on the wire) stds have died off (CORBA, COM etc) formatted text has taken off as a result of the plethora of langauges uses. I used to be a big OpenDoc/SOM person then I used to like RMI etc buttest messaging is a more survivable approach when people look at systems with long shelf lives (which is esp the case in terms of things like the CFH program). Like Python.OK this will work with itPerl? OK..C++? OKetc.etc. Being able to read a text file/stream is just about the lowest common denominator wrt inter-systems comms. B) wrt XML the std mark up of an element / etc attributes as basically properties/ini format of x=y is so std now (esp wrt the prevalence of HTML) that I can not see much shifting that. Wrt actual low level designs etc within that sphere (W3C Schema vs Relax or XSLTv1 vs V2 etc) then the higher level (e.g. HL7 Mif or XMI or SVG etc) will be subject to change the strady growth in new standards. The recent ODF/OOXML fight is an example of this. Heck why not write your ADL handling etc in PICK ? You might find it hard to get Dell et all to support Pick on your choice of hardware so why not try build your own hardware with Pick optimised chips while you're at it? I assume you meant to surround this with sarcasm tags. Only just. Once you start down the roll your own route where do you stop? If you want to write your very own persistence mechanism/db I cannot but admire your ambition but I would caution wrt expecting others wishing to use it vs spending a bit more on hardware. This wasn't the subject. I used the SQL database use as an analogy. I don't need to create my own (even if I could) object databases prove themselves very useful in implementation. See above. How this applies to healthcare is that healthcare information must contain truth. That truth is fully dependent on the complete context of where, when and how it was recorded. This context needs to be understood in all spatial and temporal instances where this information is or may need to be used. An obvious response would be that Heisenberg would argue with the above. Well, I am not a quantum physicist and would not argue with him in that domain of course. However, a lot has changed in information processing since he passed away in 1976. I would venture to guess that he might have made some adjustments to his uncertainty principle in the process. There is certainly a great deal of vagueness in healthcare information and the ARB has had MANY discussions about handling these situations. But I still maintain that vagueness nor uncertainty negates the expected truth value of healthcare information. The truth of healthcare information exists in the context of which it is collected. It may later proved to be incorrect but if the complete context of the information is known, it will be understood by the receiver. An interesting subject indeed but we are drifting off the subject to some extent. :-) G However the whole point of an object model (as opposed to an object implementation) is that it is implementation neutral. True. But the implementation must faithfully represent the semantics of the model or it isn't an implementation. No argument from me. However to take the example of UML ( please note I am not a great fan of UML as it is more of a meta-standard (try taking a xmi/model from one UML tool to another)) you can design your class diagram etc then persist/implement that model in all sorts of ways. So long as you can faithfully re-create that model then.. e.g. A mate of mine called Bob has built this: http://umlspeed.sourceforge.net/ Which I often use for quick modelling. As an example from the above, Were there an AOM/MOF mapping then in theory you could persist an archetype out as XMI. BTW sidenote: I have
Archetype documentation using XML + XSLT
Adam, Indeed however there are ways of persisting a model they require at the end of the day a recognizable document design/format. I have already noted how using text children of an element to use a value vs a std value attribute in the archetype xml inflates the file sizes. A Some value /A A value=Some value/ Are both persisting/serializing the same data. Adam Your example here is contrary to your statement, example 1, 17 characters, example 2, 23 characters. Not sure how you get a 1/3 size reduction. Heath
Archetype documentation using XML + XSLT
Adam Flinton wrote: I have already noted how using text children of an element to use a value vs a std value attribute in the archetype xml inflates the file sizes. A Some value /A A value=Some value/ And Heath Frankel replied: Your example here is contrary to your statement, example 1, 17 characters, example 2, 23 characters. Not sure how you get a 1/3 size reduction. WellHeathIfYourTagsAreReallyReallyLongAndYourDataValuesAreReallyReallyShortThenYouWouldGetAtLeastAOneThirdSizeReduction ok? /WellHeathIfYourTagsAreReallyReallyLongAndYourDataValuesAreReallyReallyShortThenYouWouldGetAtLeastAOneThirdSizeReduction WellHeathIfYourTagsAreReallyReallyLongAndYourDataValuesAreReallyReallyShortThenYouWouldGetAtLeastAOneThirdSizeReduction value=ok?/ - Peter
Archetype documentation using XML + XSLT
Heath Frankel wrote: Adam, Indeed however there are ways of persisting a model they require at the end of the day a recognizable document design/format. I have already noted how using text children of an element to use a value vs a std value attribute in the archetype xml inflates the file sizes. A Some value /A A value=Some value/ Are both persisting/serializing the same data. Adam Your example here is contrary to your statement, example 1, 17 characters, example 2, 23 characters. Not sure how you get a 1/3 size reduction. Heath I have detailed the exact figures earlier. The 1/3'rd reduction came from running a transform which applied this rule to all the templates archetypes in the NHS repository branch doing a before after comparison. To recap quickly - usually elements are not called A but are called things like terminology_id so you get terminology_id ISO_639-1 /terminology_id vs terminology_id value=ISO_639-1/ But them you then also get: terminology_id valueISO_639-1/value /terminology_id Adam ** This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a million messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why more and more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for Health system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail **
Archetype documentation using XML + XSLT
Peter Gummer wrote: My reply was really just an attempt at humour, Colin. Even with really long tag names, you don't get a 1:3 ratio; not even 1:2, I think. And of course OPENEHR_ELEMENT_NAMES_ARE_NOT_REALLY_LONG_ANYWAY ;-) - Peter The key difference though is that I came to the figures via a comparison based upon real templates archetypes within the NHS subversion repository @ http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/ i.e. it was not plucked from the air but was based upon a fair few real openehr artefacts. I can send you the transform you too can do real world comparisons. Adam - Original Message - From: Colin Sutton ColinS at ctc.usyd.edu.au To: Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com; For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at openehr.org Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:02 PM Subject: RE: Archetype documentation using XML + XSLT With a compression algorithm, the difference may be negligible. Heath's first example is smaller than the second when zipped due to the repeated strings. Of course, the result may be quite different for a larger sample where value= is repeated. regards, Colin ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical ** This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a million messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why more and more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for Health system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail **
Archetype documentation using XML + XSLT
Colin Sutton wrote: With a compression algorithm, the difference may be negligible. Heath's first example is smaller than the second when zipped due to the repeated strings. Of course, the result may be quite different for a larger sample where value= is repeated. even larger should you wish to use val instead of value etc. Adam ** This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a million messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why more and more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for Health system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail **
AOM MOF mapping
Sam, Help me understand this exercise if CCD exists? Ed Sam Heard sam.heard at oceani nformatics.comTo Sent by: adam.flinton at nhs.net, For openEHR openehr-technical technical discussions -bounces at openehr. openehr-technical at openehr.org orgcc Subject 04/19/2008 08:26 Re: AOM MOF mapping AM Please respond to For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technica l at openehr.org Hi Adam This is something we would very much like to do. I would propose the following senario: 1. Develop a template for CCR 2. Document it (html) and enable data entry 3. Transform the template to MOF 1. Create data against the MOF 4. Transform the data entered against the template to CDA 5. Compare the data This would seem useful as a trial. Cheers, Sam Adam Flinton wrote: In a reply wrt On Information and Interoperability I have noted that there is a move underway to try produce an HL7 model (via EMF/MOF) for use in our /OHT eclipse tooling. Has anyone looked at an AOM/MOF mapping? If so any thoughts? E.g. were one to want to sit down do some Eclipse OpenEHR tooling then an obvious contender would be the Eclipse EMF/GMF that would require a AOMEMF mapping given EMF is a subset of MOF then etc. Adam ** This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a million messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why more and more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for Health system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail ** ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Dr Sam Heard Chief Executive Officer Ocean Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Senior Visiting Research Fellow, University College London Aus: +61 4 1783 8808 UK: +44 77 9871 0980 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
AOM MOF mapping
Adam Sam This is very interesting, kind of relates to my recent post MDA/MDD DSL. For my med student brain I want to clarify that I get what Adam suggests. MOF has the idea of 4-layer meta-modelling. In the case of AOM/MOF mapping this would lead to this: m3 (meta-metamodel) - MOF m2 (metamodel) - AOM and RM (?) [expressed as instance of MOF] m1 (model) - Archetypes m0 (data) - Archetype instances Is that correct? I am especially curious whether the Reference Model (RM) as indicated above also needs to be expressed as MOF in the m2 layer. I would presume so. As Adam, suggested it makes sense to used the EMF infrastructure tools (e.g. have a look at the screen-video http://redmonk.com/tv/eclipse-emf-demo-large/ ) as their meta-metamodel Ecore is supposed to be pretty much EMOF (essential MOF) compliant. @Sam: If I understand you correctly your trial design starts with an CCR-openEHR-template (i.e. several aggregated archetypes plus maybe further constraints). This would be the m1-layer. Before we could do that we would have to create the generic m2-layer. Thilo On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Hi Adam This is something we would very much like to do. I would propose the following senario: Develop a template for CCR Document it (html) and enable data entry Transform the template to MOF Create data against the MOF Transform the data entered against the template to CDA Compare the data This would seem useful as a trial. Cheers, Sam Adam Flinton wrote: In a reply wrt On Information and Interoperability I have noted that there is a move underway to try produce an HL7 model (via EMF/MOF) for use in our /OHT eclipse tooling. Has anyone looked at an AOM/MOF mapping? If so any thoughts? E.g. were one to want to sit down do some Eclipse OpenEHR tooling then an obvious contender would be the Eclipse EMF/GMF that would require a AOMEMF mapping given EMF is a subset of MOF then etc. Adam ** This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a million messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why more and more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for Health system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail ** ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Dr Sam Heard Chief Executive Officer Ocean Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Senior Visiting Research Fellow, University College London Aus: +61 4 1783 8808 UK: +44 77 9871 0980 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
