The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Bert Verhees wrote: > And of course, good non-GUI-building archetype-editors which are still not > there, the complains I had about the both mainstream archetype-editors were > admitted, but the improvement did not yet come. Hi Bert, I remember that you described some inconsistencies on one o

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Hi Tom You ask: > Is there a better meta-architecture available? When actually the question at hand appears to be: is it even worth having one? I don't think that this is a question with a technical answer. It's a question of what you are trying to achieve. I've written about this here: http://w

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

>There is always a meta-architecture. It's just a question of whether system builders are conscious of it. Thomas, perhaps you don't intend humor, but gems like this are what make reading your posts both enlightening and entertaining, even for someone at my distance. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:06

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

I am always somewhat surprised as well. Thanks by the way for your clarifying notes, that is exactly how I would summarise the discussions. - thomas On 07/04/2013 22:08, Randolph Neall wrote: > Hi Thomas, > I'm surprised that at this advanced stage of openEHR's maturity you'd > still have to d

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Hi Randy, I take your point about there being two threads in this discussion but I think they *are* closely related. The nub of Tim's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that a two-level model is appropriate but that a three-level model (i.e openEHR specialisations and templates) , allowin

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Hi Tom You ask: > Is there a better meta-architecture available? When actually the question at hand appears to be: is it even worth having one? I don't think that this is a question with a technical answer. It's a question of what you are trying to achieve. I've written about this here: http://w

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Hi Thomas, I'm surprised that at this advanced stage of openEHR's maturity you'd still have to defend concepts like these, which are self-evident. Your architecture, or something closely resembling it, is actually the only path to (1) computability, (2) shareability, and (3) coherent and maintaina

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On 04/07/2013 10:40 AM, Thomas Beale wrote: > Is there a better meta-architecture available? I think is a very good architecture, that is why I am using it, but I(we) keep having to deal with people who think otherwise. I am not smart enough to point out why HL7v3 messaging is good or bad, or wh

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On 07/04/2013 12:11, Grahame Grieve wrote: > Hi Tom > > You ask: > > > Is there a better meta-architecture available? > > When actually the question at hand appears to be: is it even worth > having one? > > I don't think that this is a question with a technical answer. It's a > question of what y

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On 07/04/2013 00:35, Bert Verhees wrote: >> That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability. > As far as I can see, also from my experience, nor OpenEHR, nor MLHIM will be > the only datamodel system on the world. Cooperation with other systems will > always need a message-for

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Two remarks, just some thoughts that occur to me in this discussion. First, datamodel re-use like in inheritance is a technical approach, it is not proven that it will always be good from a medical-informatics point of view. So it should not be a leading principle in design. It is just handy for

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On 06/04/2013 23:50, Thomas Beale wrote: > > [This is Tim again, initially bounced] > >> And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not >> see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is >> why he can hold forth so strongly for XML. >> >> Rand

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On 06/04/2013 23:50, Thomas Beale wrote: > > [This is Tim again, initially bounced] > >> And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not >> see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is >> why he can hold forth so strongly for XML. >> >> Rand

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

[This is Tim again, initially bounced] > And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not > see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is > why he can hold forth so strongly for XML. > > Randy Neall You are mostly correct. It isn't that I

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Hi Tim >There is no need for specialisation or redefinition in MLHIM. Concept Constraint Definitions (CCDS) are immutable once published. In conjunction with their included Reference Model version they endure in order to remain as the model for that instance data. Unlike you, I believe that the

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On 05/04/2013 13:03, Thomas Beale wrote: > > [original post by Tim bounced; reposting manually for him] > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Thomas Beale > wrote: > >> if you mean the competing inheritance models - I have yet to meet any XML >> specialist who thinks they work. The maths are again

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

Cook: There is no need for specialisation or redefinition in MLHIM. Concept Constraint Definitions (CCDS) are immutable once published. In conjunction with their included Reference Model version they endure in order to remain as the model for that instance data. Unlike you, I believe that the abi

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

[original post by Tim bounced; reposting manually for him] On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Thomas Beale wrote: > if you mean the competing inheritance models - I have yet to meet any XML > specialist who thinks they work. The maths are against it. > Interesting that you, the creator of a tech

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress [on behalf of Tim Cook]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Beale wrote: > > [original post by Tim bounced; reposting manually for him] > Thanks Tom. I probably posted with the incorrect email address again. Arrrgh, organizing the simple things is difficult. --Tim

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress

Tim Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Ian McNicoll > wrote: > >> >> You are conflating two quite different issues. >> > > I don't think so. I demonstrated what the specifications have to say > on the matter. > Then pointed out that an internationally respected expert on ADL and >

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress

On 04/04/2013 12:09, Tim Cook wrote: >>> well, since the primary openEHR projects are in Java, Ruby, C#, PHP, etc, I >>> don't see where the disconnect between the projects and the talent pool is. >>> I think if you look at the 'who is using it' pages, and also the openEHR >>> Github projects, you

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress

Hi Tim, I will leave the XML vs. ADL aspects for others to discuss and address your comments re namespacing. I think we all agree that openEHR artefacts need proper identification control, almost certainly something like namespacing. Some draft suggestions have been made and are carried on docume

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress

On 29/03/2013 16:19, Thomas Beale wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > I don't see any problem here. The extant open 'reference > implementation' of openEHR has been in Java for years now, and > secondarily in Ruby (openEHR.jp ) and C# > (codeplex.com ). The o

The Truth About XML was: openEHR Subversion => Github move progress

On 29/03/2013 14:15, Tim Cook wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I have amended the Subject Line since the thread has diverged a bit. > > [comments inline] > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Thomas Beale > wrote: >> one of the problems with LinkEHR (which does have many good features) is >> that it is drive