Wre are not talking about the AQL specification wer are talking about how that AQL specification applies to a specific RM, in our cae the openEHR RM - as you can see from Seref and Bjorn’s examples there are legitimate varying interpreatations of how it should be applied - is EHR e optional, what exactly does CONTAINS mean, how deep should CONTAINS go without a parent object e.g FROM EHR e CONTAINS ELEMENT.
That level of detail need to be worked out, agreed and then documented. I think that is understood. What we are wrangling here is the best way to dcument the outcome of those discussions.
Being able to process expressions, queries, decision logic etc - all requires model representation. This is just standard mainstream IT, nothing special.
My reading of the discussion is that while openEHR has done a remarkably good job in model-driven representation in terms data of data, that this is far from the standard mainstream IT in terms of implementation, especially in terms of profiled AQL. The pushback I am hearing from Seref and Sebastian suggests that as implementers they are not comfortable, at least right now with having this kind of RM-specific behaviour documented in a model-drive formalism. Seref is telling us he has been down this road already and saw the limitations.
I am going to push very clearly that we do not adopt BMM for this purpose but go with Seref’s suggested approach - if nothing else that will allow us to make positive progress on addressing the kind of reasonable questions that Seref, Bjorn and Sebastian are asking.
I would like a much clearer answer from implementers on where/how BMM has value before commiting much more resource in that direction.
Expressions, Task Planning and probably GDL3, because you can’t do any of these things without proper model representation.
I’d like to test that statement with experienced implementers - the success of openEHR to data has been because of the great work that you have done on model representation but I know there has already been significant pushback in a similar way around Expressions. I feel we are in real danger of seeing everything in terms of abstract models. @thomas - you have a great handle on this but everytime we push further down this road , I feel we are losing understanding and support, certainly from people outside our community but increasingly from those working within.
But I am probably the least qualified person to make such a judgement, expect from the position of perhaps representing something approaching the ‘great coding unwashed’