This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Processing Logic in RIMBAA Applications"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[category:RIMBAA Issue]]  
+
[[category:Closed AID Issue]]  
 
==Summary==
 
==Summary==
 
*If one uses the RO cell (of the [[Technology Matrix]]), how should/could the processing logic be supported?
 
*If one uses the RO cell (of the [[Technology Matrix]]), how should/could the processing logic be supported?
Line 7: Line 7:
 
*Content driven logic: based on whatever is contained in the data instance.  
 
*Content driven logic: based on whatever is contained in the data instance.  
 
*Context driven logic: based on the context of the data, e.g. based on knowledge that the data conforms to an InteractionId, a MessageType or Templates.  
 
*Context driven logic: based on the context of the data, e.g. based on knowledge that the data conforms to an InteractionId, a MessageType or Templates.  
 +
 +
*See [http://www.insighteck.com/blog/?p=123 GELLO and RIMBAA blogpost by Ioan Salau] for a discussion of the ralationship between [[GELLO]] and PL.
  
 
==Discussion==
 
==Discussion==
Line 19: Line 21:
 
MvdZ: I think the cells in the Technology Matrix are different representations of information, so Logic will be in the transition from e.g. MO to MO.
 
MvdZ: I think the cells in the Technology Matrix are different representations of information, so Logic will be in the transition from e.g. MO to MO.
 
* certainly this is true, but not all the logic is transitions. --[[User:Grahamegrieve|Grahamegrieve]] 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 
* certainly this is true, but not all the logic is transitions. --[[User:Grahamegrieve|Grahamegrieve]] 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
Andy Harris: data layer should be context driven (though context may be given by content)

Latest revision as of 08:11, 25 March 2015

Summary

  • If one uses the RO cell (of the Technology Matrix), how should/could the processing logic be supported?

Analysis

Grahame pointed out that PL may be done in multiple ways. The extremes are:

  • Content driven logic: based on whatever is contained in the data instance.
  • Context driven logic: based on the context of the data, e.g. based on knowledge that the data conforms to an InteractionId, a MessageType or Templates.

Discussion

RO/RS has the advantage of re-uses of one generic bit of code, supports private non-predefined models (ad-hoc RIM objects).

Grahame, in his own application development, uses RO, but uses context-driven-logic (i.e. knowledge that the RO stuff conforms to an interaction - or more particularly, a particular use-case), to process things (and move to the RP or AP cell). By using an underlying RO, I can mix generic and specific use-case driven code seamlessly.

In general, MS/MO is mostly context driven, RS/RO (or, rim-based logic) is mostly content driven.

  • This may be because the RIM is a static information model, and that it if it was extended to cover behavioural stuff, that logic would be abstractable? (--Grahamegrieve 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

MvdZ: I think the cells in the Technology Matrix are different representations of information, so Logic will be in the transition from e.g. MO to MO.

  • certainly this is true, but not all the logic is transitions. --Grahamegrieve 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Andy Harris: data layer should be context driven (though context may be given by content)