Hello Tim, Sunday, March 12, 2006, 1:09:33 PM, you wrote:
TC> David Guest wrote: >> Webservices does not seem that daunting a technology. My concern is >> about standardising the minimum datasets and calls that they will >> provide. Communication between disparate applications is much easier >> with RPC/SOAP but you still don't want to write (n-1)! interfaces. TC> It's not as bad as you think, David! To get n information systems which TC> each use their own dataset definitions and semantics to talk to one TC> another, you only need write n(n-1) sets of interfaces, don't you?. For n >> 4, n(n-1) < (n-1)! TC> However, either way you are on a hiding to nothing. Bring on the TC> minimum/core dataset definitions (or I should say, let the argy-bargy TC> over what needs to be in the minimum/care dataset definitions commence!)! TC> Tim C It quite reasonable to use SOAP to transport information encoded in an existing standard. If we try and define SOAP interfaces to transport atomic clinical information then a target date of 2020 should be set. HL7 V3 has been going since the early 90's. HL7 V2 has been around for 20 years - and is the standard selected by NEHTA for data transmission. So interfaces need to be defined to transport HL7 data, as HL7 does not define transport. As an interim measure interfaces to transport PIT could be used, but the worry is they will be taken up and meaningful data transfer still won't occur. The latest position statement for NEHTA clearly identifies HL7 V2 as the data transfer content. SOAP is a transport wrapper. To try and do something else involves inventing a whole new standard. You may not like the current standards, but inventing a new one is not a trivial exersize. -- Best regards, Andrew McIntyre mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Medical-Objects 139 King Street Buderim Q 4556 PH 61 (0)7 54455037 PH 61 (0)7 54455047 www.medical-objects.com.au _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
