Release 1.0.2 change - SPEC-260 - Correct the regex publishedforthe ARCHETYPE_ID type (due date 304/Aug/08)

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080724/7450071a/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanInformaticsl.JPG Type: image/jpe

DADL optional rm-type

On Thursday 24 July 2008 17:29:41 Thomas Beale wrote: > Bert Verhees wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wrote another message before, earlier this week, but that was addresses > > to the Java-list, but I now think it is a problem of specification. > > -- > > I want to know, is it in all cases

Release 1.0.2 change - SPEC-260 - Correct the regex publishedforthe ARCHETYPE_ID type (due date 304/Aug/08)

Hi Sam, I agree that the revision number should not be part of the id, from my view this is unnecessary and only complicates the handling of archetypes. It may be a good idea to have this information somewhere in the description section of the archetype though - something that can be added auto

DADL optional rm-type

Bert Verhees wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote another message before, earlier this week, but that was addresses to > the Java-list, but I now think it is a problem of specification. > -- > I want to know, is it in all cases possible to guess the rm-type in a dadl- > construct? I ask this,

Release 1.0.2 change - SPEC-260 - Correct theregex publishedforthe ARCHETYPE_ID type (due date 304/Aug/08)

Peter Gummer wrote: > Thomas Beale wrote: > > >> archetype_id: qualified_rm_entity ?.? domain_concept ?.? version_id >> >> qualified_rm_entity: rm_originator ?-? rm_name ?-? rm_entity >> rm_originator: V_NAME >> rm_name: V_NAME >> rm_entity: V_NAME >> >> domain_concept: concept_name { ?-? specia

DADL optional rm-type

Hi, I wrote another message before, earlier this week, but that was addresses to the Java-list, but I now think it is a problem of specification. -- I want to know, is it in all cases possible to guess the rm-type in a dadl- construct? I ask this, because the specification says:

Release 1.0.2 change - SPEC-260 - Correct the regex publishedforthe ARCHETYPE_ID type (due date 304/Aug/08)

I now have the grammar and PERL regex as below. This is slightly improved (I believe) from Peter's last version. archetype_id: qualified_rm_entity ?.? domain_concept ?.? version_id qualified_rm_entity: rm_originator ?-? rm_name ?-? rm_entity rm_originator: V_NAME rm_name: V_NAME rm_entity: V_