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

2018-03-19 Thread 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

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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?

2018-03-19 Thread 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

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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,

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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

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

2018-03-19 Thread 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: >