This page makes two different proposals for improving ADL in a generic way, that would remove the 'custom syntax' used to efficiently represent constraints on Coded text, Quantity and Ordinals.
...
value matches {
QUANTITY [at0014] matches {
property matches {[at4]} – bind to SCT temperature
units matches {[at5]} – bind to SCT/UCUM 'deg C'
magnitude matches {|32.0..212.0|}
}
QUANTITY [at0015] matches {
property matches {[at4]} – bind to SCT temperature
units matches {[at6]} – bind to SCT/UCUM 'deg F'
magnitude matches {|0.0..100.0|}
}
}
...
value matches {
QUANTITY matches {
property matches {[at4]} – at4 bind-> SCT 'temperature'
[units, magnitude] matches {
[{[at5]}, {|32.0..212.0|}] , – at5 bind-> UCUM or SCT oF
[{[at6]}, {|0.0..100.0|}] – at6 bind-> UCUM or SCT oC
}
}
}
In the above, the {} surrounding each leaf level constraint are needed because although such constraints are typically atomic, as above, they may also take other standard ADL forms such as a list of strings, list of integers etc. In the latter case, the ',' characters from such lists will be conflated with the ',' separator of the distinct constraints in the tuple. Use of {} is also logically justified: each such entity is indeed a 'constraint' in the ADL sense, and all constraints are delimited by {}.
...