Hi Antas, Let me try to iron out some misconceptions.
Of course you have a right to your opinion. On Tuesday 16 November 2004 03:59, J. Antas wrote: > After a hot discussion about the subject of embracing (or not) the HL-7 > definition (I would not call it a protocol... yet), an idea has grown > among certain Care2x developers that an independent Health Exchange > Protocol was the better way to go. > > When that idea potential was realized Care2x's project leader, Elpidio > Latorilla, just put 2+2 together and did a quick fix of the old RPC-XML > protocol with the new health exchange needs and quickly tried make it is > own. The HXP protocol was born. This is not the main reason for the decision to create the hxp protocol. The following is the background in rough chronological order: Back in the very late 2003, somebody from Egypt who was testing the beta care2x inquired if it is possible to install separate care2xs for several hospitals and clinics but they have the capacity to share the patient data. He envisioned the separation of installations in order to contain user access to within the hospital's/clinic's organization. Of course this can be done with a single installation as long as the software was designed accordingly. There is even a similar open-source software with that design created by a group in the USA. Care2x is not designed that way (not yet). So instead of spending enormous amount of resources in redesigning care2x (or creating a special version), I thought why not install a separate care2x for each hospital and just find a way to have them share the patient data. After some time I discovered xml-rpc (among others) and found it simple enough to create the needed solution. During the initial phases of testing, it became obvious that the idea can be extended for inter-application data sharing not just among the care2x duplicates. After some functions were running, the idea to start a more formally documented subproject surfaced. So there we have it, the hxp subproject with its website and drafts. Now where was hl7 all along in this story? Well, hl7 was never the reason for hxp. Even if there were discussions about hl7, it was not the motivation for hxp. The graphic image you see on that page showing a vision of integrating hl7, soap and raw xml came at the very late phase of publishing the subproject. Since no code nor demo is available demonstrating the feasibility of this "added" vision, one can say that their addition in this phase can be seen as "diplomatic" move. No need to antagonize these protocols because the vision might be feasible in the future anyway. You can believe this or not. Its your own decision. > If you take a look at the "About the authors" page at the HXP site > http://hxp.sourceforge.net/ , you will perhaps get the idea that all > that was born from the Elpidio's own mind. I will not even raise the > issue of intellectual honesty. It was stated only that I have created the initial drafts of the (hxp) protocol and the pcd. It never stated that I invented the xml-rpc protocol. We must note that xml-rpc is the raw rpc protocol, while the hxp is the combination of the xmp-rpc and the function names with their structures (output and input parameters). Analogous to the C language as the xml-rpc while the actual libraries of function names and classes as the hxp. On that website, xml-rpc is splattered everywhere. In fact, the entire official xml-rpc page was framed in. There is no attempt to hide the xml-rpc nor its originators. > The HXP protocol, being based in RPC-XML had nothing innovative (see the > RPC-XML site at http://www.xmlrpc.com/). > But, in a sense, the XML part of it would certainly grant HXP a nice > future. > > So, guess what? It seems that Siemens just did the same as Elpidio. > But this time it was done the right way. The definition is related to > XML and looks only related to auditing procedures in healthcare... but > auditing encompasses all what you can do in a health information system. > > The paper has just been released as a Internet Engineering Task Force > (www.ietf.org) request-for-comment (RFC) number 3881: > > RFC: 3881 > Author: G. Marshall / Siemens > Category: Informational > Date: September 2004 > Link: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3881.txt If one looks carefully at the xml schema, one can see that it is much similar to SOAP rather than xml-rpc. So, one might better repost the above comment to the SOAP developers. Or better still, talk directly to G. Marshall of Siemens. > Although being released as an auditing tool facilitator, the bases for a > much larger project are all there. > > Is it a goodbye HXP, hello RFC3881? This is not really the question in this case. If one believes that having those official sounding names guarantees its acceptance or success, one just need to look around. There are lots of similar attempts to succeed by capitalizing on this "official" approach. Isnt HL7 one of them? In any case, the hxp will not suffer. If it is ignored for inter-application data sharing, then it will just revert to its original intention, and that is inter-care2x data sharing. If RFC3881 or whatever they are called becomes useful enough (not just from technical viewpoint), then hey, thats good, lets use it! Btw: regarding Sun Tzu, did he ever mention in his book that there are armchair warriors and real warriors? I'm just curious. Still the same, Elpidio ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Care2002-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/care2002-developers
