Re: Is partial datetime pattern (yyyy-mm-ddTHH:??:??) equivalent to "any allowed"?

2018-03-19 Thread Pablo Pazos 
Hi Gerard, this is about the current specs and what is supported by
modeling tools, not about the interpretation of what a duration is. I
detected two different constraints that might be equivalent and that's not
clear on the current specs

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 05:14 GF  wrote:

> My ideas about this topic.
>
> Two distinct different times we need to consider:
> -Time (physical) at the system level to be used for Timestamps, including
> Time zone
> Chronos is the greek deity associated with it.
> A specific generic data type will deal with this.
> - Time as used by humans. Including Time zone but also things like week,
> autumn, midnight, and associated time relationships like before, after,
> during, overlapping, etc.
> The associated Greek deity is Chairos.
>
> The *Chronos Time* is modelled using a data type.
> The *Chairos Time* is modelled via Archetypes  using the Data Types but
> augmented with attributes taken from the proper ontologies.
>
>
> Gerard   Freriks
> +31 620347088
>   gf...@luna.nl
>
> Kattensingel  20
> 2801 CA Gouda
> the Netherlands
>
> On 19 Mar 2018, at 01:56, Pablo Pazos  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm digging into the specs again, and testing the modeling tools to
> produce different constraints for DV_DATE_TIME.
>
> When I analyzed the partial datetime pattern -mm-ddTHH:??:?? that
> allows optional minutes and seconds, and the constraints that would
> correspond to "any allowed" it seems both are the same. I'll explain.
>
> "any allowed" for DV_DATE_TIME would be any value that actually is a
> datetime. For instance "1999-01-01" is not a datetime, so "any allowed
> should check for datetime that at least has hours, that is something like
> "1999-01-01T16".
>
> Having "1999-01-01" as a datetime would be a type mismatch if we are
> strict. With relaxed rules we can say "1999-01-01" is equivalent to
> "1999-01-01T00:00:00", but we are assuming something that might not be the
> intent of the user that inputs the data. Since this is health date, I
> prefer the strict approach.
>
> But if we have the partial datetime pattern, that is validating the same,
> that at least the hours are there, then minutes and seconds are optional.
>
>
>1. Invalid datetime like "546454" won't be valid on any allowed or
>partial pattern
>2. Date only like "1999-01-01" won't be valid on any allowed or
>partial pattern, since it is not a datetime, is date
>3. Date with hours, will be valid on both
>4. Date with hours and minutes, will be valid on both
>5. Date with hours, minutes and seconds will be valid on both
>
> (on all cases timezone information can be added, if it is not present, UTC
> is default)
>
>
> Considering this, it seems both are equivalent. So why allow both?
>
> IMO this generates a point where implementers can have different
> interpretations and implement both constraints in a different way (any
> allowed and partial pattern).
>
>
> What do others think?
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
> +598 99 043 145
> skype: cabolabs
> 
> http://www.cabolabs.com
> https://cloudehrserver.com
> Subscribe to our newsletter 
> ___
> openEHR-implementers mailing list
> openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-implementers mailing list
> openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-implementers mailing list
openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org

Re: Is partial datetime pattern (yyyy-mm-ddTHH:??:??) equivalent to "any allowed"?

2018-03-19 Thread GF 
My ideas about this topic.

Two distinct different times we need to consider:
-Time (physical) at the system level to be used for Timestamps, including Time 
zone
Chronos is the greek deity associated with it.
A specific generic data type will deal with this.
- Time as used by humans. Including Time zone but also things like week, 
autumn, midnight, and associated time relationships like before, after, during, 
overlapping, etc.
The associated Greek deity is Chairos.

The Chronos Time is modelled using a data type.
The Chairos Time is modelled via Archetypes  using the Data Types but augmented 
with attributes taken from the proper ontologies. 


Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gf...@luna.nl

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 19 Mar 2018, at 01:56, Pablo Pazos  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm digging into the specs again, and testing the modeling tools to produce 
> different constraints for DV_DATE_TIME.
> 
> When I analyzed the partial datetime pattern -mm-ddTHH:??:?? that allows 
> optional minutes and seconds, and the constraints that would correspond to 
> "any allowed" it seems both are the same. I'll explain.
> 
> "any allowed" for DV_DATE_TIME would be any value that actually is a 
> datetime. For instance "1999-01-01" is not a datetime, so "any allowed should 
> check for datetime that at least has hours, that is something like 
> "1999-01-01T16".
> 
> Having "1999-01-01" as a datetime would be a type mismatch if we are strict. 
> With relaxed rules we can say "1999-01-01" is equivalent to 
> "1999-01-01T00:00:00", but we are assuming something that might not be the 
> intent of the user that inputs the data. Since this is health date, I prefer 
> the strict approach.
> 
> But if we have the partial datetime pattern, that is validating the same, 
> that at least the hours are there, then minutes and seconds are optional.
> 
> Invalid datetime like "546454" won't be valid on any allowed or partial 
> pattern
> Date only like "1999-01-01" won't be valid on any allowed or partial pattern, 
> since it is not a datetime, is date
> Date with hours, will be valid on both
> Date with hours and minutes, will be valid on both
> Date with hours, minutes and seconds will be valid on both
> (on all cases timezone information can be added, if it is not present, UTC is 
> default)
> 
> 
> Considering this, it seems both are equivalent. So why allow both?
> 
> IMO this generates a point where implementers can have different 
> interpretations and implement both constraints in a different way (any 
> allowed and partial pattern).
> 
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com 
> +598 99 043 145
> skype: cabolabs
>  
> http://www.cabolabs.com 
> https://cloudehrserver.com 
> Subscribe to our newsletter 
> ___
> openEHR-implementers mailing list
> openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-implementers mailing list
openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org