Re: poor version management in archetype editor / clinicians content

[Stef Verlinden <stef@vivici.nl>]

Op 3-dec-2008, om 22:21 heeft Thomas Beale het volgende geschreven:

Hm...you will definitely run into problems with UML, due to the 

weaknesses around constraints in general, and also the orientation to 

class models rather than object models. They have never really worked 

well so far in health and I don't expect them to in the future. 

Just out of curiousity. Yesterday I read the article Bert pointed out (en good reasons why an HL7-XML message is not always the best solution

http://www.xml4pharma.com/HL7-XML/HL7-XML_for_CDISC_Standards.pdf)

I was triggered by the following  statement in this article :"Though the use of UML may be the perfect and well-established way for translating a software design

to software classes, it is considered bad practice by XML specialists. Transformation of UML to XMLSchema in general leads to “spaghetti XML”, introducing unnecessary complexity. Of course it is an “easy” way: the world has much more UML specialists than it has XML-Schema specialists.

Personally, I would consider transformation of UML to XML-Schema the “lazy man's way”. The result can however be catastrophical."

Now thomas seems to have (from my non-technical point of view:-) ) a similar objection against the use of UML.

Is this the idea that using UML is the lazy man's way leading to 'spaghetti' widely accepted among XML specialists? I'm asking this because here in the Netherlands the 'official' viewpoint seems that UML is the 'solution' for all our problems. In that case are there more articles published about this subject? 

If this idea is widely accepted among XML experts, at least, it hasn't landed at the level of the decision makers in the Netherlands. 

Cheers,

Stef