Hi Mikael
I've not seen the final specification, but in it's original
draft, it was extremely limited in scope. For instance, the
language would have made the grammar unsuitable for use in
OpenEHR, though there was no technical reason for this.
Apparently there's going to be a new draft shortly.
was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20081203/d8ce08e4/attachment.html
Thanks Adam
I agree. The first version had some simplification built in (such as default
existence) which does compress things a great deal. We do need to make sure
the next version (1.5) is the basis for the new schema though. No point in
doing this for 1.4
Cheers, Sam
-Original
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/20081203/b7f029f2/attachment.html
Hi Grahame,
You are right that the compositional grammar don?t solve the whole problem.
I just meant that the compositional grammar probably is a part of the
solution for binging to SNOMED CT (and maybe other systems that is possible
to postcoordinate.)
Greetings,
Mikael
--
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20081203/9912d0e2/attachment.html
Sam Heard wrote:
Hi All
I think we are addressing an issue that will come up in templates as
well. How to add terms from a local terminology directly into a
template. Local is used for the archetype terms ? I have wondered if
we should use a template: namespace for terms that are created
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~hajar.kashfi/
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20081203/747fb41c/attachment.html
8 matches
Mail list logo
