Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Pablo Pazos]

Hi Thomas, the definition of DV_DURATION is clear to me :)

The issue is on the 1.0.2 specs, I guess they used DV_DURATION in
C_DURATION because the referenced Duration class in C_DURATION was not
included on the specs. *This is the issue I'm pointing to, the missing
class.*

Clarifying that on an errata addendum would help to avoid such
implementation mistakes, that are really caused by the missing information
on the spec + interpretation to fill the gap.


BTW, this is one case that I detected because I'm doing research for a new
course. There might be issues like this on other areas of 1.0.2, I mean
missing classes referenced from AOM or AOP. I didn't do a complete review
of the specs.

I would love to migrate everything to baseline spec and use AOM2, but I
can't afford the cost right now. I'm sure others are on my same position.

BTW tried to check if the issue is also on 1.0.3 but the link to support is
broken http://openehr.org/RM/Release-1.0.3/support.html

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Beale 
wrote:

>
>
> On 19/03/2018 18:33, Pablo Pazos wrote:
>
> Thanks Thomas, I see the Duration class on the baseline BASE model
>
> http://openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/foundation_
> types/foundation_types.html#_overview_5
>
> But I'm a 1.0.2 implementer and I guess there are others. As far as I can
> see, there is no Duration class for 1.0.2. I would be good to add a
> disclaimer or errata comment for 1.0.2 maybe guiding to use ISO8601_DURATION
> or DV_DURATION in CDuration.
>
>
> DV_DURATION has never been the target type of C_DURATION - DV_DURATION is
> a complex type in the DV_ORDERED hierarchy (i.e. a sibling more or less of
> DV_QUANTITY).
>
>
> IMO that can generate a mismatch between implementations. For instance,
> the Java Ref uses DV_DURATION in CDuration https://github.com/
> wware/openehr-java/blob/master/openehr-aom/src/main/
> java/org/openehr/am/archetype/constraintmodel/primitive/
> CDuration.java#L186
>
>
> I don't know why they do that - that is not what the spec says.
>
> - thomas
>
> --
> Thomas Beale
> Principal, Ars Semantica 
> Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
> 
> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
> 
> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
> 
> Health IT blog  | Culture blog
> 
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> technical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
+598 99 043 145
skype: cabolabs

http://www.cabolabs.com
https://cloudehrserver.com
Subscribe to our newsletter 
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Thomas Beale]

a cleaner programmer journey would be AOM2/ADL2, even if you stick to RM 
1.0.2 ;)


- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Thomas Beale]

On 19/03/2018 18:33, Pablo Pazos wrote:

Thanks Thomas, I see the Duration class on the baseline BASE model

http://openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/foundation_types/foundation_types.html#_overview_5

But I'm a 1.0.2 implementer and I guess there are others. As far as I 
can see, there is no Duration class for 1.0.2. I would be good to add 
a disclaimer or errata comment for 1.0.2 maybe guiding to use 
ISO8601_DURATION or DV_DURATION in CDuration.


DV_DURATION has never been the target type of C_DURATION - DV_DURATION 
is a complex type in the DV_ORDERED hierarchy (i.e. a sibling more or 
less of DV_QUANTITY).




IMO that can generate a mismatch between implementations. For 
instance, the Java Ref uses DV_DURATION in CDuration 
https://github.com/wware/openehr-java/blob/master/openehr-aom/src/main/java/org/openehr/am/archetype/constraintmodel/primitive/CDuration.java#L186


I don't know why they do that - that is not what the spec says.

- thomas

--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica 
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare 

Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation 

Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society 

Health IT blog  | Culture blog 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Pablo Pazos]

Thanks Thomas, I see the Duration class on the baseline BASE model

http://openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/foundation_types/foundation_types.html#_overview_5

But I'm a 1.0.2 implementer and I guess there are others. As far as I can
see, there is no Duration class for 1.0.2. I would be good to add a
disclaimer or errata comment for 1.0.2 maybe guiding to use ISO8601_DURATION
or DV_DURATION in CDuration.

IMO that can generate a mismatch between implementations. For instance, the
Java Ref uses DV_DURATION in CDuration
https://github.com/wware/openehr-java/blob/master/openehr-aom/src/main/java/org/openehr/am/archetype/constraintmodel/primitive/CDuration.java#L186



On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Thomas Beale 
wrote:

> Hi Pablo,
>
> you should use the specs on the main spec home page
> ; in this
> case I guess it is the AOM 1.4 spec
> 
> you want to refer to.
>
> We now have the basic time types in the Foundation types spec
> .
> Both Duration and Iso8601_Duration are defined. For the archetype spec, the
> former is assumed, because ISO8601 syntax representation is used in
> archetypes.
>
> The specification is much better (but different) in AOM2
> 
> .
>
> - thomas
>
> On 19/03/2018 05:24, Pablo Pazos wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking at CDuration http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/
> am/aom.pdf page 46, the range constraint is defined with a Duration class.
>
> On the support specs http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/
> rm/support_im.pdf page 30 we have the ISO8601_DURATION class.
>
> Should AOM reference that class or we have another Duration class
> somewhere?
>
> Or should we use DV_DURATION in CDuration? (DV_DURATION inherits from
> ISO8601_DURATION). http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/
> rm/data_types_im.pdf page 54
>
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> technical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
+598 99 043 145
skype: cabolabs

http://www.cabolabs.com
https://cloudehrserver.com
Subscribe to our newsletter 
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Bert Verhees]

On 19-03-18 16:16, Thomas Beale wrote:



On 19/03/2018 08:57, GF wrote:

Again my thoughts

Duration is not a Data Type in many computer languages.
So we need to model it in an Archetype (Chairos)


that's true, but in databases and XML it is, and it is mostly treated 
like a primitive data type - i.e. a non-identified, instance-only type 
- in most language libraries. Note - here I am talking about a 
primitive type 'Duration' (also Iso8601_duration), not types like 
DV_DURATION. For AOM2, we treat it and the other date/time primitives 
as proper primitive types, also Uri, etc, and it makes life much easier.


- thomas

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 



My opinions:

First: I agree with the distinction in datatypes between AOM and RM. The 
AOM should live as much as possible independent from the RM (I prefer 
completely independent), the RM should only deal with data-constructions 
and datatypes to describe target-data in.


Second: The archetype should be independent from the used computer 
language to build the AOM in. In many languages Duration is a valid 
datatype.


Java has it, Golang has it, C++ has it. And if it is not in a 
programming language, that language should be extended by a library 
which delivers the datatype.


Best regards

Bert


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[GF]

Duration must be modelled using Archetype and not as part of the RM or AOM.



Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gf...@luna.nl

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 19 Mar 2018, at 15:55, Pablo Pazos  wrote:
> 
> Hi Gerard, this is about the current specs, not about what is supported by 
> programming languages.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 05:57 GF > wrote:
> Again my thoughts
> 
> Duration is not a Data Type in many computer languages.
> So we need to model it in an Archetype (Chairos)
> 
> Gerard   Freriks
> +31 620347088
>   gf...@luna.nl 
> 
> Kattensingel  20
> 2801 CA Gouda
> the Netherlands
> 
>> On 19 Mar 2018, at 06:24, Pablo Pazos > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Looking at CDuration 
>> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/am/aom.pdf 
>>  page 46, the 
>> range constraint is defined with a Duration class.
>> 
>> On the support specs 
>> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/support_im.pdf 
>>  page 
>> 30 we have the ISO8601_DURATION class.
>> 
>> Should AOM reference that class or we have another Duration class somewhere?
>> 
>> Or should we use DV_DURATION in CDuration? (DV_DURATION inherits from 
>> ISO8601_DURATION). 
>> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/data_types_im.pdf 
>>  
>> page 54
>> 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Thomas Beale]

On 19/03/2018 08:57, GF wrote:

Again my thoughts

Duration is not a Data Type in many computer languages.
So we need to model it in an Archetype (Chairos)


that's true, but in databases and XML it is, and it is mostly treated 
like a primitive data type - i.e. a non-identified, instance-only type - 
in most language libraries. Note - here I am talking about a primitive 
type 'Duration' (also Iso8601_duration), not types like DV_DURATION. For 
AOM2, we treat it and the other date/time primitives as proper primitive 
types, also Uri, etc, and it makes life much easier.


- thomas

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[Pablo Pazos]

Hi Gerard, this is about the current specs, not about what is supported by
programming languages.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 05:57 GF  wrote:

> Again my thoughts
>
> Duration is not a Data Type in many computer languages.
> So we need to model it in an Archetype (Chairos)
>
> Gerard   Freriks
> +31 620347088
>   gf...@luna.nl
>
> Kattensingel  20
> 2801 CA Gouda
> the Netherlands
>
> On 19 Mar 2018, at 06:24, Pablo Pazos  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking at CDuration
> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/am/aom.pdf page 46,
> the range constraint is defined with a Duration class.
>
> On the support specs
> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/support_im.pdf page
> 30 we have the ISO8601_DURATION class.
>
> Should AOM reference that class or we have another Duration class
> somewhere?
>
> Or should we use DV_DURATION in CDuration? (DV_DURATION inherits from
> ISO8601_DURATION).
> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/data_types_im.pdf page
> 54
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Should Duration class used in AOM 1.0.2 be ISO8601_DURATION from support specs?

[GF]

Again my thoughts

Duration is not a Data Type in many computer languages.
So we need to model it in an Archetype (Chairos)

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gf...@luna.nl

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 19 Mar 2018, at 06:24, Pablo Pazos  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Looking at CDuration 
> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/am/aom.pdf 
>  page 46, the 
> range constraint is defined with a Duration class.
> 
> On the support specs 
> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/support_im.pdf 
>  page 
> 30 we have the ISO8601_DURATION class.
> 
> Should AOM reference that class or we have another Duration class somewhere?
> 
> Or should we use DV_DURATION in CDuration? (DV_DURATION inherits from 
> ISO8601_DURATION). 
> http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/data_types_im.pdf 
>  
> page 54
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org