ADL/AOM 1.5 - id-codes unification - the final change

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Thu Jan 2 05:15:47 EST 2014


Hi Thomas, best wishes to you too, and all other readers.

ADL is a generic modeling language, one should not stick to the OpenEHR 
RM while defining it.

it looks like a good idea to reflect the structure of an archetype in 
the idCodes, like this:

definition[at0000]
     list[at0000.1]
         element[at0000.1.1]
             datavalue[at0000.1.1.1]
         element[at0000.1.2]
             datavalue[at0000.1.2.1]

But there is a suggestion of ordered elements, but ordering can make 
archetypes immutable towards derived versions in the context of 
backwards compatibility.
Because imagine you want to insert an element, this can be confusing

definition[at0000]
     list[at0000.1]
         element[at0000.1.3]
             datavalue[at0000.1.3.1]
         element[at0000.1.1]
             datavalue[at0000.1.1.1]
         element[at0000.1.2]
             datavalue[at0000.1.2.1]

So I would suggest a non-numerical reflection of the structure, or, a 
design which leaves room for inserts, like this.

definition[at0000]
     list[at0000.100]
         element[at0000.100.100]
             datavalue[at0000.100.100.100]
         element[at0000.100.20]
             datavalue[at0000.100.200.100]

After insert this would become this
definition[at0000]
     list[at0000.100]
         element[at0000.100.50]
             datavalue[at0000.100.50.10]
         element[at0000.100.10]
             another_datavalue[at0000.100.100.5]
             datavalue              [at0000.100.100.10]
             another_datavalue[at0000.100.100.15]
         element[at0000.100.20]
             datavalue[at0000.100.200.10]

Of course, this is limited, but I have seen this kind of constructions 
before, for example in distribution of phone numbers inside a company. 
Building-number, room-number, telephone-number, but this also get 
sometimes messed up in modern buildings in which it is easy to 
restructure rooms.

Bert


On 01/01/2014 04:37 PM, Thomas Beale wrote:
>
> happy new year and best wishes for 2014. I hope your new year's day is 
> a bright one (unless you live in the UK, in which case it's a lost 
> cause today ;-)
>
> I have been working in the last few months to produce a final version 
> of ADL/AOM 1.5, based on:
>
>   * existing requirements
>     <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=196633>,
>   * emerging requirements - Intermountain, CIMI,
>   * Harold Solbrig's proposals for terms-as-URIs,
>   * Dave Carlson's MDHT
>     <https://www.projects.openhealthtools.org/sf/projects/mdht/>/ AML
>     work at OMG <http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?health/2012-7-1>led by
>     Robert lario,
>   * general feedback on this list, particularly from David Moner's
>     group at UPV, where they have implemented different rules
>   * implementer feedback
>
> I have cc:d some relevant people who are not on this list - they might 
> want to consider joining 
> <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org>. 
> If not, please email me and I'll post any views you have on the list, 
> or else feel free to feedback on the wiki page below.
>
> So here's the proposal. To date, We have been trying to keep ADL/AOM 
> 1.5 backwardly compatible at the syntax level for ADL 1.4. However, I 
> think this keeps too many old problems unsolved. I propose a new approach:
>
>   * make the central ADL/AOM 1.5 specifications as clean as possible
>   * provide a series of updates to ADL 1.4, coming from the 1.5 specs,
>     that are carefully designed to be applied to 1.4 tools, to bring
>     them up to date
>       o e.g. things like how to post-fit the new identifiers, tuple
>         support, annotations, to DAL 1.4 archetype tools
>   * provide rules and tooling to deal with differences between
>     archetype paths, upon which querying is based
>   * provide a 1.4 => 1.5 upgrade tool to completely convert existing
>     ADL 1.4 archetypes to the new format
>
> The latest changes I propose (and have in fact implemented) are 
> primarily about dealing properly with the long-running problem(s) of 
> archetype node ids.
>
> It's documented here on the wiki 
> <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49053703>.
>
> All comments and criticism welcome. If you think the proposal is 
> broken in some way, or could be done better, don't be afraid to say 
> so. Please comment on this list, or for substantive comments, the wiki 
> page is probably better. Let's try and get to a final proposal that 
> works for all ADL/AOM users - not just openEHR. I think that would be 
> a real achievement.
>
> thanks
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140102/d4d9960c/attachment.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list