ttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/2011/2518f9fa/attachment.html>
Hi Thomas and colleagues,
I would like to discuss about the other serialization form of archetype, too.
I thought YAML could be an alternative of them.
However, JSON/YAML are based on weakly typing languages, do not have
established scheme definition, such as XSD/ADL.
inline.
2011/11/11 Thomas B
XML - that there
> will be a level of classes corresponding to the space-efficient serial form,
> which are not the same as the internal AOM classes.
>
> thoughts?
Agree, it could be 0 or 1
>
> - thomas beale
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/2011/3c173711/attachment.html>
Hi Andrew,
In principle I agree. I speak only as one of the poor sods who
sometimes has to visually check the .opt template schemas and which
use the same format. I know - get a tool :-) But even in something
like XMLSpy it can get hard to see the clinical wood for the
occurences trees.
Ian
Dr I
On 11/11/2011 5:11 AM, Thomas Beale wrote:
>
> In the current ADL 1.4-based XSDs used in openEHR, occurrences,
> cardinality and existence are expressed as XML elements. We will want
> to improve this for ADL 1.5 based XML. Now, we don't want to only take
> care of XML; we also need to make it w
Apart from the size issue, readability is a particular problem because
of the verbosity of the current XML schema.
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
Clinical Modelling Consultant
it looks more narrative.
> e.g.
>
> attribute.exist == true?
> attribute.existence == 1..1
>
> Shinji Kobayashi
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/m
On 11/11/2011 08:19, Erik Sundvall wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:34, Diego Bosc? wrote:
>> Although this would work, I think that it would make ADL far less
>> readable
> Some readability thoughts...
>
> When a value (e.g. upper bound) may be either a number or a symbol (*
> or infin
On 11/11/2011 07:34, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> Although this would work, I think that it would make ADL far less
> readable and would oblige people to know always the reference model
to be clear, I am not proposing to make any change at all to ADL. ADL is
meant as a proper readable, mathematical forma
st way of XML scheme with the same reason.
>
> BTW, Rubyist might be prefer this format(YAML):
>
> occurrence:
>2..
well, that's close to what I generate in dADL right now:
but XML developers don't like that.
- thomas
-- next part --
An HT
On 11/11/2011 03:36, Andrew Patterson wrote:
>
> Why cant' the absence of a value mean unbounded?
>
> occurrences = <
> lower = <2>
> >
>
> Means 2..*
ok - if you are thinking in an XML mode, the implication is that the
default for upper is 'unbounded'.
>
> I vaguely remember us discussing
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:34, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> Although this would work, I think that it would make ADL far less
> readable
Some readability thoughts...
When a value (e.g. upper bound) may be either a number or a symbol (*
or infinity) most recieveing software will need to have logic
s
Although this would work, I think that it would make ADL far less
readable and would oblige people to know always the reference model
underneath AND their parent archetype (if for some reason the parent
archetype is not available then you are completely screwed). Even if
you say that people should
13 matches
Mail list logo
