Difference between revisions of "DataTypes Comments Section 2"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== 2 Data Type Definitions ==
+
== [http://wiktolog.com/hl7/datatypes.html#dtdl-introduction 2 Data Type Definitions] ==
 
# "This section describes each of these ways" - huh?
 
# "This section describes each of these ways" - huh?
 
# <strike>Each type is defined with the following sections:</strike>Every data type definition contains the following sections
 
# <strike>Each type is defined with the following sections:</strike>Every data type definition contains the following sections
Line 11: Line 11:
 
# The "Primary" properties is misleading - are there secondary properties that are discussed later?  Perhaps just "properties" in quotes?
 
# The "Primary" properties is misleading - are there secondary properties that are discussed later?  Perhaps just "properties" in quotes?
  
 +
* [http://wiktolog.com/hl7/datatypes.html#umllang 2.1 Unified Modeling Language (UML) Diagrams]
 
# Section two lists all these nice sections and then, ''bam'', We're hit w/ UML, even though it isn't in the list of things that are used to define a type.  What gives?
 
# Section two lists all these nice sections and then, ''bam'', We're hit w/ UML, even though it isn't in the list of things that are used to define a type.  What gives?
  
Line 16: Line 17:
 
# Colors ''cannot'' be used to encode information.  Maybe this is an HL7 problem to begin with?
 
# Colors ''cannot'' be used to encode information.  Maybe this is an HL7 problem to begin with?
  
* ''2.2. Tables of Properties''
+
* [http://wiktolog.com/hl7/datatypes.html#tabprop 2.2. Tables of Properties]
  
 
# I'm not sure that I understand what is going on with the "fuzzy" primary properties.  Aren't these part of the predicates that are defined?   
 
# I'm not sure that I understand what is going on with the "fuzzy" primary properties.  Aren't these part of the predicates that are defined?   
  
* '''2.3 Concept Domain Definitions and Bindings'''
+
* [http://wiktolog.com/hl7/datatypes.html#domdefn 2.3 Concept Domain Definitions and Bindings]
 
# Again, what the dickens does this have to do with the list defined in the introductory paragraph?  This is important material, so things like this need to be fit into the bigger scheme of things - is this a subsection of 2.2?  Something else?   
 
# Again, what the dickens does this have to do with the list defined in the introductory paragraph?  This is important material, so things like this need to be fit into the bigger scheme of things - is this a subsection of 2.2?  Something else?   
 
# There is a lot of non-obvious verbiage here... what is ''universally bound'' or even ''bound'' for that matter. Does everyone know what an OID is?'' Why is "code system" spelled "codeSystem"?
 
# There is a lot of non-obvious verbiage here... what is ''universally bound'' or even ''bound'' for that matter. Does everyone know what an OID is?'' Why is "code system" spelled "codeSystem"?
Line 27: Line 28:
 
# This is just plain out of place and confusing.  It needs to be put somewhere else and clarified.
 
# This is just plain out of place and confusing.  It needs to be put somewhere else and clarified.
  
* '''2.4 DTDL'''
+
* [http://wiktolog.com/hl7/datatypes.html#datyp2introform 2.4 Formal Data Type Definition Language(DTDL)]
 
# ''A formal definition of data types is defined here in order to clarify the semantics ...'' - huh?  
 
# ''A formal definition of data types is defined here in order to clarify the semantics ...'' - huh?  
 
# ''The formal definition only specifies the meaning'' of the data values through statements defining semantic relationships and behavior. - ''I'd argue whether it specifies the "meaning" at all.  Is this necessary, or can we shorten this to "The formal definition defines the semantic relationships and behavior of conforming data values".
 
# ''The formal definition only specifies the meaning'' of the data values through statements defining semantic relationships and behavior. - ''I'd argue whether it specifies the "meaning" at all.  Is this necessary, or can we shorten this to "The formal definition defines the semantic relationships and behavior of conforming data values".

Revision as of 17:02, 8 March 2008

2 Data Type Definitions

  1. "This section describes each of these ways" - huh?
  2. Each type is defined with the following sections:Every data type definition contains the following sections
  3. How about
    • A natural language name
    • A unique abbreviation of mnemonic
    • The parent data type(s)
    • A prose definition
    • A table of ...
  1. The "Primary" properties is misleading - are there secondary properties that are discussed later? Perhaps just "properties" in quotes?
  1. Section two lists all these nice sections and then, bam, We're hit w/ UML, even though it isn't in the list of things that are used to define a type. What gives?
  1. Colours in color would be useful, as not everyone's eye is coded the same.
  2. Colors cannot be used to encode information. Maybe this is an HL7 problem to begin with?
  1. I'm not sure that I understand what is going on with the "fuzzy" primary properties. Aren't these part of the predicates that are defined?
  1. Again, what the dickens does this have to do with the list defined in the introductory paragraph? This is important material, so things like this need to be fit into the bigger scheme of things - is this a subsection of 2.2? Something else?
  2. There is a lot of non-obvious verbiage here... what is universally bound or even bound for that matter. Does everyone know what an OID is? Why is "code system" spelled "codeSystem"?
  3. "Where possible, a set of illustrative codes from the code system will be provided. For externally defined code systems, the list is illustrative,..." - I should hope so, as they are "illustrative codes" after all. What is this really trying to say?
  4. "Status" and "Level discussion is just plain confusing.
  5. This is just plain out of place and confusing. It needs to be put somewhere else and clarified.
  1. A formal definition of data types is defined here in order to clarify the semantics ... - huh?
  2. The formal definition only specifies the meaning of the data values through statements defining semantic relationships and behavior. - I'd argue whether it specifies the "meaning" at all. Is this necessary, or can we shorten this to "The formal definition defines the semantic relationships and behavior of conforming data values".
  3. ... but the resemblance is semantic: it does not imply any procedural machinery. - say what?
  4. Concision - lord, is that even a word?
  1. named values of a fully enumerated extension - if?
  2. semantic properties - WHAT are semantic properties, and why do we have to even metion "unary", "binary and the like?
  1. Given that BL is the only type with finite values, maybe we can downplay that part?
  1. Specializes is out of place?
  2. genus and species? Isn't there a better way to describe this? If we use it, perhaps we should put "genus" and "species" in quotes as this is not a very common usage.
  3. "Specialization can include the definition of additional properties "
  4. "It is generally held that inheritance should not retract properties defined for the genus" - it is more than generally held. A "species" cannot retract properties asserted in the "genus". It is possible, however, for a "species" to contstrain a non-mandatory "genus" type to only a null value, thereby effectively declaring it as not present.
  1. Abstract - what does it mean for an exceptional value to be of an abstract type?
  • 2.4.2 Invariant Statements
  1. Again, are these "definitions, or "examples"
  2. Curiously, there is no reference to the "X<T>" construct in the assertion expressions, yet it is immediately used in 2.4.2.2
  1. "Definition 7" - you might want to also mention that this is a "promotion" or "demotion" (it isn't clear at this point which goes from "genus" to "species"...
  2. 2.4.3.1 and 2.4.3.2 clarifies the direction, but, if you are going to use the "genus" and "species" notation (or equivalent), use it agaain in these two examples.
  3. Promotion examples - "he specification of the promotion must indicate what these values are or how they can be generated.", yet the examples show no such thing.
  • 2.4.4 Literal Form
  1. Where do other non-literal conversions come into play? Is it necessary to mention this?
  2. Q: "This syntax may therefore not be completely straightforward from a computing perspective." - is it possible for all literal forms to be unambiguously converted back to the corresponding value? This is important to know...
  1. 2.4.4.1 - I'm mssing something here - since all literals convert to strings, what possibile information is added in "Definition 11"?
  • 2.4.5 Generics