Hi Dave, David Forslund wrote:
> IMHO, archetypes need to be specifiable independent of the platform > and language, including the querying. yes, we do too. We are working on a new (text) formalism for archetypes which we think will enable archetypes for openEHR, CEN and CDA to be interchanged. As soon as I have done enough work on it, I'll post a draft for comment. > How archetypes are to be stored on disk should also not be part of > the specification. Rather they should have a data model independent > of platform and language. even the current GEHR ones have that - they're instances of XML-schema. How they get converted and stored in any particular site is it's business. For example, I wrote an Eiffel kernel, and a converter to do XML->eiffel objects and store that. The DSTC did an XML system, and used the archetypes in their XML form. > I assume that if archetypes are specified by XSL Schema then one would > use a form of XPath to query them(?). I actually like something > like the Object Constraint Language for this purpose, but this might > not be popular. Yes, we have been thinking about Xpath; in fact we would like to make the path mechanism in openEHR an Xpath subset if possible. You will see somethign like this in the draft formalism I mentioned above. OCL - I just did a review on this (http://www.deepthought.com.au/it/ocl_review.html - comments welcome) , I think there are a few terrible errors in there, but also a lot of nice things. We don't have enough experience on this. You may be able to spend a bit of time on this to help the effort! > We have used C++ for more than 15 years and find it not particularly > easy to embed in other languages compared to other approaches. > It should have nothing to do with the OpenEHR specification. It doesn't ...! - thomas - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
