Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Birger Haarbrandt
Hi Thomas, Am 21.08.2018 um 20:38 schrieb Thomas Beale: That would be the case if only the AQL spec were used for conformance testing. But conformance also relies on the RM, ADL and other specs, as you can see here

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Seref Arikan
Ah I see. Well, in that case we agree :) On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Birger Haarbrandt < birger.haarbra...@plri.de> wrote: > Hi Seref, > > I'm sorry, I interpreted the following quote > > "anybody using this function could figure out that it was introduced by a > particular vendor" > > as a

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Thomas Beale
That would be the case if only the AQL spec were used for conformance testing. But conformance also relies on the RM, ADL and other specs, as you can see here . If you go to 6.2.2

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Pablo Pazos
That is one of the issues with AQL, one thing is to support the syntax, another thing is to have compatible query engine implementations, even if the semantics are correctly interpreted for each operator, data results might differ. But we are also having different interpretations of the operators,

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Birger Haarbrandt
Hi Thomas, from my perspective, this approach (by not being explicit about the RM classes (and semantics) that need to be supported by the Contains keyword) led to a situation in which two vendors (Marand and DIPS) can claim that they have a valid implementation of openEHR but are not

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Birger Haarbrandt
Hi Seref, I'm sorry, I interpreted the following quote "anybody using this function could figure out that it was introduced by a particular vendor" as a statement that the folder issue should be solved by particular vendors by introducing their own functions. I'm just saying that dealing

AW: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Sebastian Garde
I agree with Seref’s intention of keeping it clean and clear and most importantly of course consistent. In this particular case, I think the REFERS idea is worth pursuing…to me this sounds pretty fundamental and should be supported without the need for defining an extension/function (in

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Pablo Pazos
I agree with Seref, So why not use conditions over the Folder.items instead of CONTAINS? We might need a f.items INCLUDES c operator to resolve direct or indirect references (?) With indirect I mean via an OBJECT_REF, and direct via an object oriented link in the IM. That can be even used for

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Bert Verhees
On 21-08-18 17:25, Sebastian Iancu wrote: Hi Seref, Thomas, On the last SEC meeting, another proposed idea (besides the one from Seref) was to use REFERS or REFERRED BY instead of CONTAINS - but it we did not explored further on. Could this still be considered in these discussions?

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Thomas Beale
Karsten, Out of interest, is there a diagram or other GNUmed documentation / explanation of all this. It's pretty close to what I think openEHR is or should be doing; you have formalised more of this than we have so far, so it's good to have some reference points available. - thomas On

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Thomas Beale
And I meant to say: can you check if it has a PR, and if not, add one? In either case, you or Seref might add the text from his proposal as well. - thomas On 21/08/2018 16:25, Sebastian Iancu wrote: Hi Seref, Thomas, On the last SEC meeting, another proposed idea (besides the one from

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Thomas Beale
I had forgotten this, but I think it will turn out to be a syntax equivalent to Seref's proposal. It is probably the kind of syntax man people would like to use, so we should certainly consider it; it maybe that both mechanisms should be put in, and respective users can then argue over who

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Seref Arikan
Hi Sebastian, Sure, that is another way of dealing with the requirement of resolving object references. Every time we discuss new features like these for AQL, we're basically looking at a choice between small language with libraries vs large language with richer native semantics. (e.g.: Java is

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Sebastian Iancu
Hi Seref, Thomas, On the last SEC meeting, another proposed idea (besides the one from Seref) was to use REFERS or REFERRED BY instead of CONTAINS - but it we did not explored further on. Could this still be considered in these discussions? Sebastian I. On 8/21/2018 5:10 PM, Seref

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Seref Arikan
You're missing my point. To express it in your terms: this is not about excluding Folders from AQL spec, I said nothing of that sort or implied it anyway. AQL does not include or exclude individual RM types, it addresses all of RM and it is either consistent or not consistent across all of RM,

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Thomas Beale
Hi Birger, Note that no openEHR RM types (COMPOSITION etc) are part of the AQL spec - they are just used in examples. AQL doesn't actually know anytthing about particular types. Seref's intention is that it stays this way, and his proposed function, or some other equivalent resolver mechanism

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Birger Haarbrandt
Hi Seref, while I understand your argument regarding overloading of definitions (and I agree with your reasoning), I see a clear need to not treat folders as second class citizens in openEHR. Not including Folders in the official AQL spec and leaving this to vendor-dependent functions will

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Seref Arikan
@Bjorn and @Ian both: I don't think this is a good idea. This example overloads the semantics of CONTAINS operator of AQL for a very specific scenario: when the object reference is a reference to a composition and the reference sits under folder F, which btw should not be a folder contained in

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Ian McNicoll
Thanks Bjorn That feels logical and the restriction to one layer of folders make sense. I appreciate that under the hood 'CONTAINS' is implemented differently but it feels natural to think in terms of logical containment. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread GF
Hi, There is ample reason to reconsider the use and need for folders. There is a need for holding/collecting structures. The RM has several places where data can be collected: - Folder - Composition - Section - Entry - Cluster For what purposes? What contributes to the meaning, the semantics?

RE: AQL on specific list of compositions

2018-08-21 Thread Bjørn Næss
@ian – we have implemented the query you wrote: “select c from EHR e contains FOLDER f contains COMPOSITION c where c…..” You might even write: “select c from EHR e contains FOLDER f contains FOLDER child_folder contains COMPOSITION c where c…..” We made a restriction such that the