oship-dev team mailing list archive

[Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 17:40 +0200, Roberto Siqueira wrote:
> Hi, again:
>   Some new findings and a question.
> 
>   Concerning code-generation, I've concluded that it's mainly on UML tools
> that we'll be able to find code-generating capabilities. Even DIA
> (http://live.gnome.org/Dia), in principle a diagram-drawing -only
> program, has a plugin that generates code directly, from drawings of UML
> class diagrams (http://dia2code.sourceforge.net/examples.html).
> 
>   OTOH, if we choose to go the EBNF way, there is RP
> (http://lparis45.free.fr/rp.html), which can accept (a subset of) EBNF
> directly.
> 
>   So that brings me to my question: in what ADL description (Eiffel, UML,
> EBNF etc) is the pyparsing code (adl_1_4.py) exactly based on? Is it
> worth to change this (authoritative) reference, for the next versions?

The Pyparsing parser is based on the ADL 1.4 EBNF grammar.  Which is
considered the rules for ADL according openEHR/CEN/ISO.

So to answer your question; we may change from using Pyparsing (to the
more traditional lexx/yacc) but not from using the EBNF.  Have you tried
the ADL EBNF with RP?  I think this MIGHT be useful in filling in the
Definition section of the archetype while using what we have now for the
other sections???  Since we are "plugging-in" to Grok we are not simply
writing standalone Python classes.  

Thoughts?

--Tim  



-- 
Timothy Cook, MSc
Health Informatics Research & Development Services
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook 
Skype ID == timothy.cook 
***************************************************************
*You may get my Public GPG key from  popular keyservers or    *
*from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home *
***************************************************************

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part