1 / 14

HL7 version 3

HL7 version 3. Transformation to v3 XML. Scope: transformation of non-v3 XML to v3 XML, HL7 v2.x transformation to v3. Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license Source: www.ringholm.de/download/HL7v3_implementation.zip. Agenda.

madra
Download Presentation

HL7 version 3

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. HL7 version 3 Transformation to v3 XML Scope: transformation of non-v3 XML to v3 XML, HL7 v2.x transformation to v3. Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license Source: www.ringholm.de/download/HL7v3_implementation.zip

  2. Agenda • XML to XML transformation • HL7 v2.x to v3 tranforms • Implementation Experiences

  3. Transformation to v3 XML Transforming v2.xml into v3 Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license Source: www.ringholm.de/download/implementation_mechanics.ppt

  4. Representation of „Reality“ in a standard • Dynamic: a subset of all „business cycle trigger events“ • Static: a subset of the objects and attributes which play a role Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  5. Migration scenario (v2 example) • Extensively document the HL7 v2 messages • Identify the corresponding HL7 v3 interactions • Create a mapping • Syntax • Semantic: Granularity, Vocabulary • Dynamic model (trigger events) Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  6. Key Step: Version 2 Message Profiles Version 2 Implementation Version 2 Message Profile („Version 3 Ready“) Version 3 Implementation Site Interface Info Registration OID Application Role Message Profiling (Analysis) proprietary, ad-hoc documentation Use Case Model Vendor Scenario Vendor Interface Info Dynamic Definition Interaction Model v2.x Message Structure Static Definition Message Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  7. „Granularity“ of v3 • The dynamic model in v3 is different than in v2: Trigger Events occur at different points in the business process. • v3  v2.x: Multiple v3 trigger events map to a v2 event • The static v3 models are „more granular“ than v2.x • v3  v2.x: details get lost • v2.x  v3: missing information – if filled by defaults: significant risk of faulty interpretation Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  8. Concepts • Does v3 contain the same concepts as v2 ? • The RIM supports all administrative, financial and clinical concepts as present in v2. Therefore v3 is from a functional perspective fully backwards compatible with v2. • There is however not a guaranteed 1-to-1 mapping between fields or datatypes in v2 and classes/attributes in v3. Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  9. Don’t rely on a v2-v3 mapping • If your application already supports HL7 v2: HL7 v2-v3 migration by means of a mapping is problematic. • The main problem is not the mapping itself (although HL7 v3 is much more detailed than HL7 v2), but the behaviour of the application. This is mainly a business flow issue. The dynamic behaviour and trigger events in v2 and v3 are sufficiently different, that your application behaviour will need to map on to them differently. • If your application has to support both HL7 v3 as well as HL7 v2: create a new communication module for the HL7 v3 messages/documents, and use it in parallel to the HL7 v2 communication module. Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  10. Migration scenario - revisited • Avoid using mapping as a migration scenario • Ifyou have to rely on a translation: • Best practice recommendation • Extensively document the HL7 v2 messages • Identify the corresponding HL7 v3 interactions • Create a mapping • Syntax • Semantic: Granularity, Vocabulary • Kludge: (as a vendor) extend HL7 v2 messages with Z-segments [missing data & additional granularity] to allow for a translation to v3. • The long road: create proposals to extend new v2.x versions with v3 concepts, e.g. MoodCode, NullFlavor. Slide contents published under the Creative Commons / Attribute-Share Alike license

  11. OHT Semantic Mapping Tool http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/v2v3-mapping/frs/

  12. Why Semantic Mapping? To Handle Structure Clashes Message B • Most mapping tools only map data values (leaves). • Syntax to syntax mapping, e.g. XML to XML • Structure clashes (e.g. multiplicity) arise on non-leaf nodes, deep in the trees Message A mappings Slide (modified) courtesy of Rebort Worden

  13. Structure Clashes Arise from Associations object Class X • Structure clash: example • ‘Deep’ message A represents the association X=>Y by nesting of elements • ‘Shallow’ message B represents the same association by shared key values • You cannot translate from A to B without knowing how they each represent the same association • Therefore semantic mapping is needed, to drive accurate translations • Syntax (message A) to class model transformation (v3 R-MIM as a class model) • Subsequently: class model to syntax (message B) mapping association association property Class Y Message A Message B UML Class Model Slide (modified) courtesy of Rebort Worden

  14. Any Questions ? • Or: post your question/suggestions via • HL7 Wiki: http://bit.ly/d7tSsL • E-mail v3impl@ringholm.com

More Related