Hi Tim,
Because of your wide exposure to numerous systems and experts, I have two
questions for you, both of which you can answer as briefly as you choose:
1. Did I capture an underlying difference between experts in this
discussion we've had about Tim's system? Specifically, does one camp
On 09/04/2013 22:18, Tim Cook wrote:
There are a large number of misconceptions and incorrect assumptions
in this thread. I don't have time right now to address all of them
but I will later this week.
Quickly though, there are no tricks to what we do in MLHIM.
Everything is 100% W3C
The book on RelaxNG is free available on the Internet
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/page2.html
It is released under the/Free Software Foundation GFDL
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/relax-APP-B.html./
Bert
On 04/10/2013 11:33 AM, Bert Verhees wrote:
On 04/09/2013 11:18 PM, Tim
On 04/10/2013 02:33 PM, Thomas Beale wrote:
Redefinition of a
component after it has been used to generate instance data is a BAD
THING.
This is an open door, a definition can never be changed again and having
the same name.
Bert
On 10/04/2013 13:33, Tim Cook wrote:
[reposted for Tim; hist original bounced]
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
it's similar, but misses the crucial distinction between archetypes and
templates. Without that there is no library of
Tim,
Looking at the extract below, this MLHIM model would be hard to use as a
basis for generating source code facades, WSDL, JSON UI form
specifications, and other things we regularly generate downstream from
templates.
- thomas
On 10/04/2013 14:01, Timothy W. Cook wrote:
I would like to
On 10/04/2013 15:46, Tim Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
Tim,
Looking at the extract below, this MLHIM model would be hard to use as a
basis for generating source code facades, WSDL, JSON UI form specifications,
and
On 10/04/2013 16:42, Randolph Neall wrote:
The real question thus comes down to what level of thought the
nameable components of a model should express. If the entire model
could be understood as a tree, how complex should the named branches
of that model be, and how enduring should the
To put some numbers on things... in a 2012 snapshot of the openEHR.org
CKM archetypes there are:
* 267 compiling (i.e. technically valid archetypes)
o including 94 specialised ones
* In these archetypes there are:
o 3208 'archetypable' nodes (i.e. LOCATABLE nodes)
o of
9 matches
Mail list logo
