# ADL-parser, two questions

**Category:** [Technical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/technical-archive/156)
**Created:** 2013-08-23 12:22 UTC
**Views:** 1
**Replies:** 9
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-parser-two-questions/15261

---

## Post #1 by @system

Hi Rong,

1\)

According the ADL\-specs, page 89

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-/\* identifiers \*/ \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
\[a\-z\]\[a\-zA\-Z0\-9\_\]\*  V\_ATTRIBUTE\_IDENTIFIER

in adl\.jj however:
< V\_ATTRIBUTE\_IDENTIFIER: \["a"\-"z"\]\(<LET\_DIG\_U>\)\* >

Is there a reason for it?

2\)

The ADL\-Parser is not capable of parsing EN13606 archetypes because of the keyword "units" which belongs to the EN13606 datatype PQ\.

---

## Post #2 by @system

Hi Rong, excuse the trouble, I had an archetype with an error, camelcase attribute\-names are accepted, no problem at all

regards
Bert

---

## Post #3 by @system

> 2\)
>
> The ADL\-Parser is not capable of parsing EN13606 archetypes because of the keyword "units" which belongs to the EN13606 datatype PQ\.

I solved this problem by commenting out all occurrences of SYM\_UNITS

This is in line 2958, becomes: \(<SYM\_C\_QUANTITY\_UNITS>/\*|<SYM\_UNITS>\*/\) <SYM\_EQ> "<"
and line 341 becomes: /\*| < SYM\_UNITS: "units"> :DOMAIN\_TYPE\_C\_QUANTITY\*/

When done these changes, it parses the EN13606 PQ datatype, and I don't see another error\-situation coming up\.

What do you think?

Bert

---

## Post #4 by @yampeku

You will have problems with openehr c_quantity domain type.

---

## Post #5 by @system

I am not sure about that. There are a lot of test-files with that domain-type and no problem occurs. It is, I think, because the "units" will always occur inside this domain type, and inside the domain type, the DOMAIN_TYPE_C_QUANTITY lexical state should be active. But please feel free to correct me, I don't have much experience with JJ Bert

---

## Post #6 by @yampeku

Then you shouldn't have any problems

---

## Post #7 by @system

Thanks, Diego, for you encouraging words\. :\)

I don't see also no problem, I guess, I take the chance and regard it as a solution\. Because all tests in the ADL\-parser run fine, and the DV\-Quantity is very extensively tested\.

Also all my EN13606 datatypes\-tests run fine in the changed parser\.

regards
Bert

---

## Post #8 by @system

\(sorry for my bad English :\), I guess it is Friday\-afternoon and the weather is good\)
\(very important in the Netherlands\)

---

## Post #9 by @thomas.beale

Treating "units" etc as keywords is a pretty dirty way to implement dADL \(now ODIN\) parsing\! The property names in a C\_DV\_QUANTITY \(or C\_DV\_ORDINAL\) structure shouldn't be keywords, they are just property names, and should be collected and either compared to the RM or \(what I do\) converted straight to an object by the dADL \(ODIN\) deserialiser\.

As per my recent post, all of this is now gone in ADL 1\.5\.

IN any case, I would not expect any problem with picking up "units" in two different parsing contexts in the parser\.

\- thomas

---

## Post #10 by @system

I think it is an error in the ADL\-parser, the word "units" was defined twice, once globally in all lexical states, once locally in a specific lexical state\.
\(I don't know if globally and locally are right expressions in the context of JJ, I just call it that way for now\.\)

The globally definition was interfering with all use of the word "units" in an archetype\. So I removed it, and there were no side\-effects, I could see\. Maybe there are\. I hope not\.

The ADL\-parser is a fine piece of software, it takes every data\-type, every\-attribute, as long as the syntax is OK\. It really is a pleasure to work with it, and it gives many opportunities\. Except for some small errors, like this one\.

As I understand, the removal of C\_DvQuantity and other AOP constructs is a good development, because it removes exceptional circumstances for specific domain\-types and makes the ADL\-parser even more generic\.

Than, ADL will be \(concerning the supporting software\) a fully generic \(not depending on a specific reference model\) archetype definition language\. I think lots of opportunities will arise\.

Bert

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-parser-two-questions/15261
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-parser-two-questions/15261