Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Pablo Pazos
Not sure why readability is a requirement here. Shouldn't those expressions be generated and consumed by systems? We should create simple to use GUIs not simple to read code :) On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Diego Boscá wrote: > Or just use the "Long syntax" as described in

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Thomas Beale
Hi Pablo, if you were talking XML or other such unreadable stuff I agree. But the whole point of context free grammars like programming languages, ADL, OWL, and also these SNOMED mini-languages is to be formal and human readable. It is via languages that humans learn the semantics of the

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Thomas Beale
sure. But there are a lot that do, just not the ones you know ;) We have to make things work for everyone. - thomas On 16/05/2017 13:08, Bert Verhees wrote: Most creators or users of archetypes I know, completely depend on tooling. They are never capable to read an ADL text, nor do they

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Pablo Pazos
it would be good to ask them why they do that, maybe is for limitations on the modeling tools, or maybe they are cyborgs in disguise. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Beale wrote: > > sure. But there are a lot that do, just not the ones you know ;) We have > to

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Pieter Bos
If anyone knows an editor that does ADL2 and supports enough options to make editing by hand no longer needed, we're interested. Regards, Pieter Bos Op 16 mei 2017 om 18:23 heeft Pablo Pazos > het volgende geschreven: it would be

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Bert Verhees
Sorry, I cannot reply now, I reply tomorrow Bert On 16-05-17 18:25, Thomas Beale wrote: I think this idea is probably right, in some form. You can see the current formal definitions for the terminology structures here (ADL2

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Thomas Beale
I think this idea is probably right, in some form. You can see the current formal definitions for the terminology structures here (ADL2 , AOM2

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Bert Verhees
On 16-05-17 18:14, Thomas Beale wrote: sure. But there are a lot that do, just not the ones you know ;) We have to make things work for everyone. So what about my suggestion a few weeks ago, to add a comment-section to a terminology-binding url to explain what the url does. Most people

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Pablo Pazos
Mentioned that in general, don't see the point of arguing about readability of things that are meant to be generated and processed by machines. not read or processed by a person. If modeling tools work as expected, no clinical modeler or terminologist should deal with "source code". But I get

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Thomas Beale
not at all - a lot of people work with ADL, ODIN, BMM, JSON etc in plain text for teaching, development of test archetypes, test data, looking at data, making small systems etc. - thomas On 16/05/2017 13:22, Pablo Pazos wrote: it would be good to ask them why they do that, maybe is for

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Thomas Beale
Bert there is no resistance, in fact I at least agree with your general idea - see my other post. Just a question of getting the analysis right, implementing it and releasing a specification update. Then retroatively fitting it to ADL 1.4 (now we need ADL 1.5 ;) - thomas On 16/05/2017

Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation

2017-05-16 Thread Bert Verhees
Most creators or users of archetypes I know, completely depend on tooling. They are never capable to read an ADL text, nor do they ever want to read it. And as I suggested, with smart text-editors http-url encoding can be easily translated/showed into readable url's On 16-05-17 16:06,