<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Implementing Healthcare Messaging with XML</title>
	<link>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/</link>
	<description>Some thoughts on meaning, the web and everything</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Marc de Graauw</title>
		<link>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-7863</link>
		<author>Marc de Graauw</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 08:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-7863</guid>
		<description>Ravi,

currently we handle all errors on their own level, so one can get http errors, soap faults, HL7 errors. HL7 errors are normal soap responses. 

An alternative approach is to package accept acks containing just an error code in a soap fault - I think that approach is equally valid, I can see no real problem. 

True, the error appears on more levels - http 500, soap fault, hl7 error, but soap already does that itself by packaging soap faults in http 500.

Hope this helps, 

Marc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ravi,</p>
<p>currently we handle all errors on their own level, so one can get http errors, soap faults, HL7 errors. HL7 errors are normal soap responses. </p>
<p>An alternative approach is to package accept acks containing just an error code in a soap fault - I think that approach is equally valid, I can see no real problem. </p>
<p>True, the error appears on more levels - http 500, soap fault, hl7 error, but soap already does that itself by packaging soap faults in http 500.</p>
<p>Hope this helps, </p>
<p>Marc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ravi</title>
		<link>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-7850</link>
		<author>ravi</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 20:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-7850</guid>
		<description>Hi Marc,
I went through some of your blogs and material regardfind hl7v3 implementation.
we are trying ti implement PIX/PDQ for subject discovery and also document query and retrieval.
I was wondering how did you take care  of error codes specified in those transactions.
I found a document where they mention about how error code should be handled for XDS document query and retrieval but i did not find anything for subject discovery.  

just another dumb questions. i am assuming that whatever error codes are specified they have to be send as either a soap response or ebrim error message but NOT as soap fault. I did not know if my assumption is true or not.

it would be helpful if you can comment on it and share your experience on this.

Thanks
ravi</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Marc,<br />
I went through some of your blogs and material regardfind hl7v3 implementation.<br />
we are trying ti implement PIX/PDQ for subject discovery and also document query and retrieval.<br />
I was wondering how did you take care  of error codes specified in those transactions.<br />
I found a document where they mention about how error code should be handled for XDS document query and retrieval but i did not find anything for subject discovery.  </p>
<p>just another dumb questions. i am assuming that whatever error codes are specified they have to be send as either a soap response or ebrim error message but NOT as soap fault. I did not know if my assumption is true or not.</p>
<p>it would be helpful if you can comment on it and share your experience on this.</p>
<p>Thanks<br />
ravi</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc de Graauw</title>
		<link>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-6233</link>
		<author>Marc de Graauw</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-6233</guid>
		<description>Marouan,

I think WSRM is fine. HL7 is abandoning accept acks for reliability itself, and anyway one has to implement reliability with accept acks oneself. I have much more doubts on WSA. WSA is one the most "unRESTful" parts of WS-*, and I think we should take the REST criticism seriously (whereas REST has no generally accepted reliability solution, and WSRM is not that unRESTful). Not do I really believe the underlying view of WS-* and WSA where lots of intermediaries without knowledge of the message do intermediairy stuff, and that is the problem area which WSA addresses. So I'd preferably use Basic Profile, WSRM, and only those parts of WSA which are needed for the particular WSRM solution, not use HL7 accept acks, and keep HL7 Sender and Receiver.

Hope this helps,

Marc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marouan,</p>
<p>I think WSRM is fine. HL7 is abandoning accept acks for reliability itself, and anyway one has to implement reliability with accept acks oneself. I have much more doubts on WSA. WSA is one the most &#8220;unRESTful&#8221; parts of WS-*, and I think we should take the REST criticism seriously (whereas REST has no generally accepted reliability solution, and WSRM is not that unRESTful). Not do I really believe the underlying view of WS-* and WSA where lots of intermediaries without knowledge of the message do intermediairy stuff, and that is the problem area which WSA addresses. So I&#8217;d preferably use Basic Profile, WSRM, and only those parts of WSA which are needed for the particular WSRM solution, not use HL7 accept acks, and keep HL7 Sender and Receiver.</p>
<p>Hope this helps,</p>
<p>Marc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marouan OURI</title>
		<link>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-6228</link>
		<author>Marouan OURI</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.marcdegraauw.com/2007/12/10/implementing-healthcare-messaging-with-xml/#comment-6228</guid>
		<description>Hi Marc,

It's one the important question that i am thinking on. 

In your perspective and after your recent chat on the conference "Implementing Healthcare Messaging with XML", do you think that the WS* (WS RM and WS addresing)  are enough mature and performant to use ? Especially for a large implementation of an EHR ?

Or simply use the basic WS profile with the native hl7 message capabilities like the accept ack.

Thanks.

Marouan Ouri</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Marc,</p>
<p>It&#8217;s one the important question that i am thinking on. </p>
<p>In your perspective and after your recent chat on the conference &#8220;Implementing Healthcare Messaging with XML&#8221;, do you think that the WS* (WS RM and WS addresing)  are enough mature and performant to use ? Especially for a large implementation of an EHR ?</p>
<p>Or simply use the basic WS profile with the native hl7 message capabilities like the accept ack.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Marouan Ouri</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
