Bmm_Expression implementation for using in archetype rules

[saeedsamie46 (Saeed Samie)]

Hi everybody,
We are developing an ADL2 base tool. The first beta version has passed preliminary tests for creating and specializing archetypes and creating templates including operational templates. By the courtesy of “Archie” I created a c# translation, and accordingly refactored version of the ‘Flattener’. I also implement BMM for model accessing and validations as much as I needed. Now I am going to implement the “Rules” part of the archetype. So I need to implement the BMM Expression as much as I require for the project. I checked the “Archie” implementation and I found that they implemented the expression part nearly as it has been in ADL1.4. I wonder if there would be a Bmm_Expresion implementation that conforms to the standard stated in the specifications or I should also implement it as such.
I appreciate any advice.

[NeoEHR (Borut Jures)]

Pieter has a development version of Archie with many changes regarding ADL2.

There is also a discussion about the expressions:

ASSERTION in openehr_expression_104.bmm is not in accordance with the specifications

There appear to be more differences, unfortunately. Differences between the model in Archie and Expression Language (EL) that are not simple renames that I found so far: EXPR_FUNCTION.function_def is of type FUNCTION_DEF. It is EXPR_FUNCTION.function_name as a string in Archie. There is no function_def class in Archie. OPERATOR_DEF_BUILTIN is an enum in Archie (renames are easy, parsing/serialization slightly more tricky) EXPR_TYPE_DEF is the enum EXPRESSION_TYPE in archie (renames are easy, …

---

p.s.
Congratulations on your BMM and ADL2 parsers

[saeedsamie46 (Saeed Samie)]

Thanks a lot for the fast reply.
I took a glance on the subject at the forum. There are a lot of differences between current specifications and the Archie implementation which is understandable for a developing standard. Then I should first implement those parts of the BMM which is necessary for the El expression. I appreciate any help on this.

[thomas.beale]

@saeedsamie46

I took a glance on the subject at the forum. There are a lot of differences between current specifications and the Archie implementation which is understandable for a developing standard. Then I should first implement those parts of the BMM which is necessary for the El expression. I appreciate any help on this

Stay connected here, please (see that discussion @NeoEHR linked to), we are discussing right now (for a few months) the correct Expression Language to use for existing archetypes, and to support a few existing implementations (mainly Nedap and LinkEHR). There is a new expression language on the horizon but for now we are adjusting the old one (BASE Release 1.0.4).

More soon.

[pieterbos]

Any ADL2 archetypes available now will have been written in the expression language that is closely related to the ADL 1.4 one. It is also linked from the latest release ADL 2 spec.

Discussion about what’s next is ongoing. There is as far is I know currently no implementation of the newer BMM expression language. I think any change will need to take into account some sort of migration plan.