I think we can put the formalisms we know in the terminology, but being 
flexible to allow local formalisms, like using "local" for the terminology_id. 
If we don't do that, we'll need to maintain the terminology for every new 
formalism.
Not sure about having two fields, it seems the role of both is the same. We can 
do that with parameters or suffixes on MIME types (the structure allows that): 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_media_type
With CODE_PHRASE we can cover both cases, defined and non-defined MIME types.

If the MIME type is String, we lose control over the values, I'm considering 
trying to process something I receive and not "understanding" that String. With 
terminology = local, I know that I may not have the code (if "local" is another 
system), but for a MIME type from IANA I will have it. Also this allow us to 
define our own openEHR types without the need of registering those at IANA, 
like ADL or OPT (e.g. text/opt+xml).


-- 
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
http://cabolabs.com

Subject: Re: Term set for DV_PARSABLE.formalism
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:38:40 +0100


  
    
  
  
    On 28/07/2015 18:49, pablo pazos wrote:

    
    
      
      
      If that's the case, we lose the coding system /
        terminology of the mime types that are defined.
        

        
        It would be better to make DV_PARSABLE.formalism of type
          CODE_PHRASE instead of String and use "local" for the
          terminology_id of those formalisms that doesn't have a mime
          type.
        

        
      
    
    

    well actually we could do that and put all those other formalisms
    into the openEHR terminology.

    

    The original idea was to allow (encourage) MIME types as strings,
    and then outside of MIME, any other formats just as their own short
    string, e.g. 'mp5' (imagine it exists), or 'adl'. 

    

    There are a lot of formats that are essentially text/plain, but the
    format is actually parseable, e.g. glif3, most programming languages
    and so on. So 'text/plain' isn't that useful a thing to know.

    

    I wonder if we have to give in and have two fields, one that is a
    MIME type field (the current one) and a second field that has a term
    defining the semantic format, mostly applicable when the MIME type
    field is text/plain, text/xml and other text types.

    

    - thomas

    

  


_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org   
                                  
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Reply via email to