On 31/01/2012 11:15, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > Ok, if implementation experience says it is better to have separate > sections for human readable annotations and machine-targeted "program > directives" then I guess that is a good approach. Are there any tools > that support this now?
well not today, but if we decide to specify this concept, I can implement it with examples in the reference ADL compiler very quickly. The code for more dADL sections is easy. Others are working in getting the Java parser up to ADL 1.5. Changes like this don't make that much difference because they are just straight dADL => objects transforms. If we specifiy and implement the outer structure I proposed, but don't say anything about the tag or values, we can accommodate the RDF approach just as easily as anything else. > > If going for an RDF-like URI based approach for "program directives" > or "implementation_directives" then those serialization formats that > aim for human readability (e.g. ADL and YAML) may want to use some > kind of URI-prefixing-mechanism to make the directives shorter and > more readable. (Similar approaches are used in XML (namespaces) and > many RDF serialization formats.) I would opt for "implementation_directives", less ambiguous. > > I assume "program directives" will include both pass_through and more > purely GUI-oriented directives. Will they contain everything > annotation/directive-like that is intended to be machine processable > and human language independent? Is that a correct and shared view of > the purpose? that's my understanding. I don't think anyone has any more than an ad hoc knowledge so far of what these things are likely to be, much less a structured theory about what /should/ be included. > > Are both "annotations" and "program directives" supposed to be > attributes of the class AUTHORED_RESOURCE? I don't find them in the > current > http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/rm/common_im.pdf > > but I guess that might be a matter of time constraints - or are they > going to be only a part of AOM/ADL itself? I just want to check what > the future thoughts are. you can see annotations in section 7.1 of that doc. 'implementation_directives' I think should go on the ARCHETYPE class for now. > > Is "program directives" the best name? "Annotations" is very a very > generic and useful name, but that word is already taken for the human > readable stuff. Could anything from the following list inspire > somebody with a more native feel for English to come up with > alternate name suggestions? well I think 'implementation_directives' says what we mean here, but it is annoyingly long, that's for sure. I am fine with 'directives', as long as we define what this means in the documentation and everyone understands its scope. 'processing_directives' or 'processing_instructions' seem like reasonable synonyms, but are also annoyingly long. Does 'processing' on its own make sense? - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120131/3482363a/attachment.html>
