[New-ITS] Complexity Measures

[Thomas Beale]

Grahame Grieve wrote:
>
>> In an archetype these are all coded with internal archetype codes and 
>> then Snomed and/or LOINC codes, depending on availability. In some other 
>> system, an equivalent thing has to be done.
>>     
>
> oh - right - real codes with semantics. So how is this better than a set
> of act relationships. I don't get it
>   
in the same way that the current RIM (or any reference model) is better 
than a class model that is literally just two classes: Node and Arc. 
Imagine what the current MIM would look like with only those classes 
(and 152 billion codes) available.

The point of defining any information model more complicated than this 
is to commit to certain semantics over and above node/arc that we know 
we want to re-use all over the place, and that we want to standardise 
across all modelling activities. So the current RIM has 2 patterns 
(meaning that modellers can now state role-participation-act semantics 
in a re-usable, standardised way); I am saying that it needs more to 
ease many of the modelling problems currently being experienced.

node/arc = binary
RIM = assembler language
needed = pascal

- thomas