Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

These are all very good reasons. So I make an ADL serializer, so I can always represent my archetype ADL for archive purpose. But the complexity of the parser, that I don't want anymore. Life is short. And there are better things to do. As said, I am building an BMM/AOM environment as a

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16/02/2019 14:00, Bert Verhees wrote: On 16-02-19 13:20, Thomas Beale wrote: Have a look at the Archie project , you'll find very vanilla Java facilities used to do most of this work. Thank you for pointing this out. But I already knew this. My point

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16-02-19 13:20, Thomas Beale wrote: On 16/02/2019 01:38, Bert Verhees wrote: A few last words on this. It is easy for JSON based archetype repository to cooperate with an ADL based repository. Serializing of an AOM structure to ADL is very easy to do, this counts for the DADL and CADL

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16-02-19 13:16, Thomas Beale wrote: Bert, if you serialise a AOM archetype to any object dump format, you need typing information for the simple reason that there is polymorphism in the model, mainly places where the static type is C_OBJECT, C_DEFINED_OBJECT or C_PRIMITIVE_OBJECT but the

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

On 16/02/2019 01:38, Bert Verhees wrote: A few last words on this. It is easy for JSON based archetype repository to cooperate with an ADL based repository. Serializing of an AOM structure to ADL is very easy to do, this counts for the DADL and CADL part. The other way around, to convert

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

Bert, if you serialise a AOM archetype to any object dump format, you need typing information for the simple reason that there is polymorphism in the model, mainly places where the static type is C_OBJECT, C_DEFINED_OBJECT or C_PRIMITIVE_OBJECT but the attached type in a real archetype can

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

> or CIMI in any version, or accountancy software or many other can be read >> by a novice programmer, so simple it is. >> >> And I think that is how code should be. Easy to test, easy to debug, easy >> to read, easy to understand. >> >> That is my story, I want

Re: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

o test, easy to debug, easy > to read, easy to understand. > > That is my story, I wanted to see how other people think about these > ideas, thanks for sharing your opinions. > > Best regards > Bert > > Sent from my Xperia™ by Sony smartphone > > > Bert Verh

Re: JSON for definitions-notation

> The folks doing CIMI use at least the JSON mode. It also generates XML, via > custom serialiser. > One of the jobs I never completed is a deserialiser for the 3 regular > formats, but it is nearly trivial. Exactly my point, I completely agree with this. Bert > > Venkat Subramaniam, who

RE: FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

your opinions. Best regards Bert Sent from my Xperia™ by Sony smartphone Bert Verhees wrote > > >Sent from my Xperia™ by Sony smartphone > > Original Message >Subject: Re: JSON for definitions-notation >Sent: 15 Feb 2019 22:46 >From: Bert Verhe

FW: Re: JSON for definitions-notation

Sent from my Xperia™ by Sony smartphone Original Message Subject: Re: JSON for definitions-notation Sent: 15 Feb 2019 22:46 From: Bert Verhees To: Pieter Bos Cc: Not many people find archetypes readable. I can read them and I have done that many times, but most modelers I know

Re: JSON for definitions-notation

Archie offers a json serializer and deserializer. For Odin they are present as well, but has not been tested with archetypes, may need a small bit of work. Yaml should be a matter of adding a dependency and configuring it. We're still working on XML - the bindings are there and it works, but the

Fwd: JSON for definitions-notation

The object dump is a common use-case for JSON. There a few things that are needed more then the object dump. What we would still need is standardised naming-notation of classes and properties, so there cannot be a conflict on that. I think the current format used in OpenEhr is very good,

Re: JSON for definitions-notation

JSON, YAML and ODIN are all just object-dump serial formats that result from traversing an in-memory object graph, so it is a generic operation to generate them from tools (XML is more problematic due to being irregular in many ways and being schema-dependent). In the case of archetypes, the

JSON for definitions-notation

I always admired OpenEhr for its ability to notate archetype-definitions and now also BMM definitions in any type. I saw experiments in XML, but the official endorsed notation language is ADL. I wonder, would it also be possible to write archetypes and reference-models in JSON? If so, it