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. 2 VA\EDS 19 May 2015 Intro: sample ebXML HL7 message HL7v3 Message XML representation with TrasmissionWrapper/ ControlWrapper/ Payload Duplicate Metadata Information

3. 3 VA\EDS 19 May 2015 Current HL7v3 state Current HL7v3 state: º RMIM -> XML ITS º XML ITS -> transport binding º HL7v3 XML Message contains: Transmission/Control wrapper Message payload - ControlAct Pros: º Comfort zone – been there, done that º Works well for simple transports (MLLP over the socket) Cons: º Message header & payload are not well separated º The only message header extensibility is using AttentionLine.value (vs. JMS or WS built in extensibility at the Message/Header root level). º Duplicate data in Transport Header and HL7 Message header attributes. º Assumes HL7-only world

4. 4 VA\EDS 19 May 2015 Real-life messaging needs Real-life within-enterprise messaging needs: º Need to transport HL7 and non-HL7 messages using common infrastructure, tools and approaches º Need to define custom message header attributes º Need “quick” transport level API access to message metadata (header attributes) w/o having to parse HL7v3 XML message º Need to support multiple transports º Need to perform transformations from one transport to another

5. 5 VA\EDS 19 May 2015 Real-life messaging implementation Real-life within-enterprise messaging implementation: º Minimal usage of MSH and Transmission/Control wrappers – just enough to get by º Store all significant routing information in the transport specific headers (JMS / WS-* / ebXML etc) º Implement within-enterprise routing logic based on the information within the transport specific headers instead of MSH and Transmission/ControlWrappers º Implement support for multiple transports with custom transformation rules between each transport.

6. 6 VA\EDS 19 May 2015 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: º RIM -> direct mapping of transmission (and control ?) wrapper information into a transport-specific headers º Between-transport header transformation rules. Pros: º No need to worry about extensibility – built-in into the advanced transports º No duplicate information within transport headers and HL7 wrappers º No need to create APIs to populate/read these fields. º Faster access w/o having to parse transport payload – HL7 XML message with wrappers inside.

7. 7 VA\EDS 19 May 2015 Discussion ? Ideas ? ? Questions ?