On 13/11/2011 22:43, Heath Frankel wrote: > I too have no problem with this custom serialisation as I have a hand-coded > serializer that does the job (I gave up on the auto-generated ones years > ago).
Heath, just to be completely clear, since we already had quite a few posts, you are happy to go with strings like "0..*", "0..1" etc? For occurrences, existence and cardinality? I realise exstence could be marginally simpler since it can only be 0..0 or 1..1 in ADL 1.5, but in ADL 1.4, there are lots of 0..1, and in any case, it just doesn't seem worth using a different method to decode existence than the other two Intervals. > > However, I think we need to go back a step and get agreement from the > community what the most important features of an XML serialization are: > readability, size, auto-generation etc. Once we get some sort of ranking > then we can score each implementation choice accordingly. agree - please use these pages <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/XML+Schemas?focusedCommentId=12550150#comment-12550150> on the wiki > > I personally don't see the need to have consistently between different > serialization formats, I think we should make the decisions that are best > for the particular format. Having said that, I would be surprised if the > logical features of the different formats would be different unless there > intended use are dramatically different (i.e. the importance of > auto-generation is likely to be the same for both JSON and XML). I would agree with these statements also... - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111114/dbe80dad/attachment.html>
