On 05/12/2011 12:36, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 00:10, Heath Frankel > <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com > <mailto:heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: > > I think previously I had indicated I had no problem with the > stringified interval approach in XML, but I am reverting my > thinking on this and feel that it would be counter intuitive for > those who what to use the XML schemas for code generation > purposes. I think in this case the computable requirement > outweighs the human readable requirement. > > > You are probably right regarding XML, and maybe this is valid also for > most JSON use-cases where the desire for an as simple as possible > object-serialization-mapping outweighs human readability. > > I think the openEHR community is best served by having different > archetype serialization format categories with different priorities > for different purposes. E.g.: > > 1a. An XML format optimized for mapping to XML-schema generated code. > 1b. A JSON format optimized for mapping to AOM object models > handcrafted or generated from AOM-specifications. > > 2. A cADL-variant wrapped in YAML optimized for human readability. It > could be used for archetype files stored in version control systems > (making version diffs readable) and as textual format when you need > textual examples in documentation, teaching etc.
I had never thought of that but the AWB has a multi-part serialiser component, so it would be possible. When I get a bit of time ;-) > > In 1a & 1b easy implementation should be prioritized over readability > but in #2 human readability should be prioritized. Erik, You didn't answer the question a while ago - who are the 'readers'? I am just asking to know if you are talking about some particular kind of educational usage, and what your criteria are for 'readability'. > Prioritizing both in the same format would likely fail. Things like > default ordering of nodes and attributes could be recommended but > optional for #1 but should be mandatory for #2 (otherwise readability > suffers and diffs get messed up). good point, you reminded me I have to fix the order in the AWB serialisations. > > I think we can come up with a much more concise representation of > these intervals without compromising the computable requirement, > something similar to XML schema maxOccurs/minOccurs. > > > Probably, but for #1 maybe being close to the AOM should be > prioritized over being concise. After all, archetypes will not be sent > over the wire at the same scale as patient data (RM instances). how can a string like "1" or "2..*" be more concise? I think this is the most concise possible format (or some slight variation, e.g. the dADL interval syntax). > > By the way, is the AOM open for changes (like renaming attributes) if > that would increase clarity? well the AOM 1.5 is a draft, so in principle yes. But we need to assess the impact. Breaking archetype authoring tools probably does not matter so much - there are not many, so we can deal with that. Impacts on EHR system software will have to be more closely evaluated before we agreed to any such changes. But let us know your fantasies anyway ;-) > - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111207/5dbff115/attachment.html>
