1 / 7

Services Oriented Transport / ITS (HL7v3 CQ / Transports) v 0.1

Services Oriented Transport / ITS (HL7v3 CQ / Transports) v 0.1. Darius Kemeklis Technical Direction / System Architecture Electronic Data Systems / U.S. Veteran Affairs Health Administration darius.kemeklis@med.va.gov. Intro: sample ebXML HL7 message. Duplicate Metadata Information.

rcathleen
Download Presentation

Services Oriented Transport / ITS (HL7v3 CQ / Transports) v 0.1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Services Oriented Transport / ITS(HL7v3 CQ / Transports) v 0.1 Darius Kemeklis Technical Direction / System Architecture Electronic Data Systems / U.S. Veteran Affairs Health Administration darius.kemeklis@med.va.gov

  2. Intro: sample ebXML HL7 message Duplicate Metadata Information HL7v3 Message XML representation with TrasmissionWrapper/ ControlWrapper/ Payload

  3. Current HL7v3 state • Current HL7v3 state: • RMIM -> XML ITS • XML ITS -> transport binding • HL7v3 XML Message contains: • Transmission/Control wrapper • Message payload - ControlAct • Pros: • Comfort zone – been there, done that • Works well for simple transports (MLLP over the socket) • Cons: • Message header & payload are not well separated • The only message header extensibility is using AttentionLine.value (vs. JMS or WS built in extensibility at the Message/Header root level). • Duplicate data in Transport Header and HL7 Message header attributes. • Assumes HL7-only world

  4. Real-life messaging needs • Real-life within-enterprise messaging needs: • Need to transport HL7 and non-HL7 messages using common infrastructure, tools and approaches • Need to define custom message header attributes • Need “quick” transport level API access to message metadata (header attributes) w/o having to parse HL7v3 XML message • Need to support multiple transports • Need to perform transformations from one transport to another

  5. Real-life messaging implementation • Real-life within-enterprise messaging implementation: • Minimal usage of MSH and Transmission/Control wrappers – just enough to get by • Store all significant routing information in the transport specific headers (JMS / WS-* / ebXML etc) • Implement within-enterprise routing logic based on the information within the transport specific headers instead of MSH and Transmission/ControlWrappers • Implement support for multiple transports with custom transformation rules between each transport.

  6. How HL7v3 could help • Continue using transmission/control wrappers for MLLP. • Use existing XML ITS: RMIM -> domain specific message payload (no control/transmission wrappers) • Define new ITS: • RIM -> direct mapping of transmission (and control ?) wrapper information into a transport-specific headers • Between-transport header transformation rules. • Pros: • No need to worry about extensibility – built-in into the advanced transports • No duplicate information within transport headers and HL7 wrappers • No need to create APIs to populate/read these fields. • Faster access w/o having to parse transport payload – HL7 XML message with wrappers inside.

  7. Discussion ? Ideas ? ? Questions ?

More Related