proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
The Canonical MD5 hash generated by the archetype editor is based on the definition and ontology attributes of the AOM, therefore the concept is not considered. Heath From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2010 4:30 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: proposed ADL 1.5 simplification Hi Thomas, That makes a lot of sense in my opinion. Don't think it will be a major problem, at least in the Java space this particular change in ADL 1.5 is not worrying me as there are others that are a lot more fundamental. Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? Sebastian Thomas Beale wrote: In all archetypes that I have ever seen, the 'concept' at the top of the archetype is always the at-code of the root object constraint of the archetype. It would make sense to turn this into a function, and remove this clause from archetypes templates. In fact, the concept code is by definition the node_id of the root object. In ADL 1.5, the root object must hae a node_id, according to the following rule: * VACCD: archetype definition code validity. The node identifier of the root node of the definition section must be the concept code mentioned earlier in the archetype. So... it seems logical to remove it from the archetype as data, and change the 'concept' property to a function which simply retrieves the node_id of the root object. It seems to be that this would be a useful change to put into ADL 1.5. Would this impact badly on tools and parsers? I think that most parsers could be left as they are, and so could most archetypes; the 'concept' clause would be sliently ignored in future. New ADL 1.5 archetypes being created would have no concept clause. - 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/20100707/64848e9a/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Sorry, I was wrong, only the description element is removed from the Canonical Archetype Model Digest, the concept is included and so is the adl_version as indicated by Peter. Heath From: Heath Frankel [mailto:heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com] Sent: Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:41 AM To: 'For openEHR technical discussions' Subject: RE: proposed ADL 1.5 simplification The Canonical MD5 hash generated by the archetype editor is based on the definition and ontology attributes of the AOM, therefore the concept is not considered. Heath From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2010 4:30 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: proposed ADL 1.5 simplification Hi Thomas, That makes a lot of sense in my opinion. Don't think it will be a major problem, at least in the Java space this particular change in ADL 1.5 is not worrying me as there are others that are a lot more fundamental. Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? Sebastian Thomas Beale wrote: In all archetypes that I have ever seen, the 'concept' at the top of the archetype is always the at-code of the root object constraint of the archetype. It would make sense to turn this into a function, and remove this clause from archetypes templates. In fact, the concept code is by definition the node_id of the root object. In ADL 1.5, the root object must hae a node_id, according to the following rule: * VACCD: archetype definition code validity. The node identifier of the root node of the definition section must be the concept code mentioned earlier in the archetype. So... it seems logical to remove it from the archetype as data, and change the 'concept' property to a function which simply retrieves the node_id of the root object. It seems to be that this would be a useful change to put into ADL 1.5. Would this impact badly on tools and parsers? I think that most parsers could be left as they are, and so could most archetypes; the 'concept' clause would be sliently ignored in future. New ADL 1.5 archetypes being created would have no concept clause. - 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/20100707/1c56b73a/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Sebastian Garde wrote: Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? I doubt it, Sebastian. Any small changes made to an archetype today will cause the MD5 hash to change. For example, open an existing archetype in a text editor and replace its first line: archetype (adl_version=1.4) With this: archetype (adl_version=1.5) Then open the edited archetype in Archetype Editor 2.1, select the Display tab and click on the ADL button to see what gets generated. The MD5 hash will be completely different. A future Archetype Editor would always replace the adl_version with 1.5 when you save an archetype, I expect, similarly to what was done manually with a text editor in this little experiment. This would be the minimal change to any archetype when migrating to 1.5. So what I am saying is that, no matter whether anything else has changed in the archetype, when migrating to 1.5, it would appear that the MD5 hash is going to be different anyway. - Peter Gummer
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Peter Gummer wrote: Sebastian Garde wrote: Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? I doubt it, Sebastian. Any small changes made to an archetype today will cause the MD5 hash to change. For example, open an existing archetype in a text editor and replace its first line: archetype (adl_version=1.4) With this: archetype (adl_version=1.5 Ah, that's rightso each and every archetype MD5 hash will change anyway when migrating to ADL 1.5 (with or without Tom's proposed change to remove the concept) - then removing the concept shouldn't matter. Sebastian
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
2010/7/6 Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Sebastian Garde wrote: A future Archetype Editor would always replace the adl_version with 1.5 when you save an archetype, I expect, similarly to what was done manually with a text editor in this little experiment. This would be the minimal change to any archetype when migrating to 1.5. We should avoid this kind of automatic changes. A user might not expect that his 1.4 ADL code is changed to a different syntax without at least a warning, since it can have an impact on his system implementation. As a typical example, when you open a .DOC document with Microsoft Word 2007/2010, it will never change it to .DOCX automatically. David -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100706/dc37d6c1/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Hi David, I agree. I think the default behaviour in AE would be switchable as per user preference. i.e. save in adl 1.4 or 1.5. The file extensions will be different in any case - .adls and .adlf. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, University College London openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland On 6 July 2010 09:04, David Moner damoca at gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/6 Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Sebastian Garde wrote: A future Archetype Editor would always replace the adl_version with 1.5 when you save an archetype, I expect, similarly to what was done manually with a text editor in this little experiment. This would be the minimal change to any archetype when migrating to 1.5. We should avoid this kind of automatic changes. A user might not expect that his 1.4 ADL code is changed to a different syntax without at least a warning, since it can have an impact on his system implementation. As a typical example, when you open a .DOC document with Microsoft Word 2007/2010, it will never change it to .DOCX automatically. David -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ 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/20100706/034e7420/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Peter, A change in the concept will cause a new canonical hash, because the concept is part of the ontology, and the ontology is part of the canonical hash. About changing ?archetype (adl_version=1.4)? to ?archetype (adl_version=1.5)?, you are right, this will cause also a new canonical hash. Although at this time the Archetype editor does not seem to take this ?archetype (adl_version=1.x)? in consideration when loading the Archetype in its environment, which is clearly a bug. (for instance, archetype (adl_version = 1.6) is also allowed and loaded by the current Archetype editor without giving any notification). A future Archetype Editor should not automatically upgrade an Archetype to a new ADL version and certainly not overwrite an existing Archetype of a previous ADL version. That will cause some major impact. About removing the concept, I do see a few (minor) advantages and disadvantages: Advantage: The simpler it gets, the better it is. Removing the ?concept? makes it more simpler. Disadvantage: All parsers should be reviewed and probably need to be updated. Overall we think it is a good proposal to remove the ?concept? out of the Archetype. Alessandro Torrisi On 6 July 2010 08:22, Sebastian Garde sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.comwrote: Peter Gummer wrote: Sebastian Garde wrote: Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? I doubt it, Sebastian. Any small changes made to an archetype today will cause the MD5 hash to change. For example, open an existing archetype in a text editor and replace its first line: archetype (adl_version=1.4) With this: archetype (adl_version=1.5 Ah, that's rightso each and every archetype MD5 hash will change anyway when migrating to ADL 1.5 (with or without Tom's proposed change to remove the concept) - then removing the concept shouldn't matter. Sebastian ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Alessandro Torrisi -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100706/ebc62322/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Remember that the archetypes in use today, in files with the '.adl' extension are all ADL 1.4 'legacy' archetypes. ADL 1.5 archetypes are 'adls' files; your environment can chose to use whichever you want. The legacy ones are not over-written or changed in any way by the ADL 1.5 tooling (ADL 1.5 flat-form archetypes are saved in '.adlf' files. ) - thomas On 06/07/2010 09:04, David Moner wrote: 2010/7/6 Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com mailto:peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Sebastian Garde wrote: A future Archetype Editor would always replace the adl_version with 1.5 when you save an archetype, I expect, similarly to what was done manually with a text editor in this little experiment. This would be the minimal change to any archetype when migrating to 1.5. We should avoid this kind of automatic changes. A user might not expect that his 1.4 ADL code is changed to a different syntax without at least a warning, since it can have an impact on his system implementation. As a typical example, when you open a .DOC document with Microsoft Word 2007/2010, it will never change it to .DOCX automatically. David -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) * * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100706/868dcf96/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
In all archetypes that I have ever seen, the 'concept' at the top of the archetype is always the at-code of the root object constraint of the archetype. It would make sense to turn this into a function, and remove this clause from archetypes templates. In fact, the concept code is by definition the node_id of the root object. In ADL 1.5, the root object must hae a node_id, according to the following rule: * VACCD: archetype definition code validity. The node identifier of the root node of the definition section must be the concept code mentioned earlier in the archetype. So... it seems logical to remove it from the archetype as data, and change the 'concept' property to a function which simply retrieves the node_id of the root object. It seems to be that this would be a useful change to put into ADL 1.5. Would this impact badly on tools and parsers? I think that most parsers could be left as they are, and so could most archetypes; the 'concept' clause would be sliently ignored in future. New ADL 1.5 archetypes being created would have no concept clause. - thomas beale -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100705/15f17cf6/attachment.html
proposed ADL 1.5 simplification
Hi Thomas, That makes a lot of sense in my opinion. Don't think it will be a major problem, at least in the Java space this particular change in ADL 1.5 is not worrying me as there are others that are a lot more fundamental. Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? Sebastian Thomas Beale wrote: In all archetypes that I have ever seen, the 'concept' at the top of the archetype is always the at-code of the root object constraint of the archetype. It would make sense to turn this into a function, and remove this clause from archetypes templates. In fact, the concept code is by definition the node_id of the root object. In ADL 1.5, the root object must hae a node_id, according to the following rule: * VACCD: archetype definition code validity. The node identifier of the root node of the definition section must be the concept code mentioned earlier in the archetype. So... it seems logical to remove it from the archetype as data, and change the 'concept' property to a function which simply retrieves the node_id of the root object. It seems to be that this would be a useful change to put into ADL 1.5. Would this impact badly on tools and parsers? I think that most parsers could be left as they are, and so could most archetypes; the 'concept' clause would be sliently ignored in future. New ADL 1.5 archetypes being created would have no concept clause. - 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/20100705/77f5f798/attachment.html
