1. PHINMS: Application Integration
Raja Kailar, Ph.D.
The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

2. Overview PHINMS – brief overview and history
Application Integration View
Summary

3. What is PHINMS? (Business Perspective)
Secure, reliable message transport
Used by PH agencies to send data to CDC
Applications using PHINMS include: BioSense, ELR, LRN, NBS, HCN, NHSN
Some states using PHINMS internally: NYS, NYC, MN, OK, CA
4-year old product deemed “mission critical” by CDC

4. PHINMS Usage

5. What is PHINMS? (Technical Perspective)
CDC’s implementation of the ebXML 2.0 messaging standards
Runs on Windows, Linux, Solaris (platform independent)
Can be used by any application that can write and read database tables (language independent)

6. PHIN - Operational Environment

7. PHINMS – Typical Message Flow
State
Public Key
(Encrypt)
State
State
Private Key
(Decrypt)
Lab
HL7
Internet
HL7
Proxy
Server
PHINMS
Receiver
PHINMS
Sender DB Q DB Q
DMZ
Firewall
Firewall

8. Application Integration View

9. Overview
Provide guidelines for business and technical decisions on messaging
Analyze application interfacing considerations
Explore ways to leverage messaging infrastructure to satisfy new data sharing needs

10. Data Sharing Models Model Pros Cons Centralized Repository
Accuracy (real time updates)
Scalability
Single point of failure
Security
Distributed
Repositories with
Query/Response
Accuracy
Autonomy (data ownership)
Privacy
Application level tight coupling
Reliability
Distributed Repositories with Messaging
Application level loose coupling
Autonomy, Privacy
Data latency

11. To Message Or Not To Message?
When to message?
Periodic, un-attended data exchange
Data latency acceptable
When not to message?
Data latency not acceptable (synchronization needed)
Manual confirmation is necessary

12. What Are Your Messaging Requirements?
Is there a need for automated B2B data sharing?
Is sensitive data being shared via the Internet?
Is guaranteed delivery of messages important?
Do you have a mix of small / large agencies (some with only “outbound” connections to Internet)?

13. Is PHINMS the Right Tool For You?
Requirement: Secure, Reliable Messaging over Internet
Option
Pros
Cons
Build
Full control over product, direction, intellectual property
1) Expensive and time consuming
2) Custom implementations may
not interoperate
3) Product maintenance and support burden
Buy
1) Quick return on investment
2) No product support burden
1) Cost
2) No control over product life cycle/direction
3) Proprietary implementations may not interoperate with other products
Use freeware (e.g., PHINMS)
1) Low investment, high returns
3) Proven solution
Reduced control over product life cycle/direction

14. PHINMS - Application Interfaces

15. Sending Side - Interfacing Steps
Interface
Usage
Database Queue
Create Database Record in transport-queue with Payload and Meta-data
File Descriptors
1) Drop file in “outgoing” directory
2) Create file descriptor
File-system Folder (new)
1) Create “Folder-Map” (map folder to addressing information)
2) Drop file to folder, and transport uses the properties in the Folder map to send file

16. Sending Interface Considerations
Interface Option
Pros
Cons
Database Queue (preferred)
1) Ease of maintenance
2) Queue Viewer (Console)
1) Dependency on DBMS
2) Requires ODBC/JDBC programming
File descriptors
1) DBMS not needed
2) Simpler programming
1) Harder to manage
File-system folders
(new)
2) No added programming
1) Queue management more complex
2) Higher disk space use

17. Receiving Interface Options

18. Receiving Interface Considerations
Mode
Pros
Cons
Synchronous
(e.g., Servlet)
Processing level response on same connection (no delays)
Not reliable (timeouts)
Harder to trouble-shoot / maintain
Asynchronous
(e.g., DBMS or JMS Queue)
Reliable, Scalable,
Easier to trouble-shoot/maintain
No processing level response

19. PHINMS - Messaging Models
Peer-to-Peer
(Direct-Send)
Messaging
Gateway
(Route-not-Read)
Model
Pros
Cons
Sending Application Interface
Gateway
1) Single security model
2) Simple deployment
3) More dynamic collaborations
1) Scalability
2) Single point of failure
3) Asynchronous only
1) Address information of Gateway and Recipient
2) Encryption with Recipient key (not gateway key)
Peer-to-Peer
1) Scalable
2) Private
3) More reliable
4) Synchronous and Asynchronous models
1) Complexity
2) Many security models, infrastructures
3) Static collaborations
Address/encryption information of Peer node

20. Leveraging Existing PHINMS For New Data Sharing

21. PHINMS - Scaling Considerations

22. Summary
Data sharing needs determine suitability of messaging, architecture and tools
PHINMS is a “pluggable” component that enables secure/reliable data sharing
Many public health organizations have PHINMS
Can leverage infrastructure for new data sharing
As usage goes up, need to scale up your infrastructure

23. Questions?