[New-ITS] [New ITS] - Industry Tool Support

[joseph.2.waller@bt.com]

All,

Reviewing the sterling work on the XML ITS I wanted to raise an early
question for opinions.

'A.3.1 Industry Tool Support' asks why tools blow up. In my experience
there are various reasons for this. But one in particular is around the
repeated definition of complex types and elements when you try to
include multiple schema in a WSDL.

Does anyone else think that the way in which the transport data is
necessarily included as a wrapper (rather than a separate header
element) tends to presuppose an HTTP profile for HL7 v3 (in other words
HL7 directly into an HTTP message). Other protocols tend towards placing
additional transport data in extensible headers (such as ebXML,
WS-Addressing and SOAP standards in general as well as JMS queuing to
some extent)?

In other words, is there any way to maintain the idea of an interaction
as a superset of a message without fixing on an pure HTTP
implementation.

I'd be interested to hear of other examples of HL7v3 implementation that
rely on soapy or 'headery' protocols.

Is the current wrapper formulation less HTTP focussed than I assume?

Thanks,

Joseph Waller |Spine Systems Engineering |National Spine |BT |T: +44
(0)113-306-5310 |M: +44 (0)7793-841-932 |E: joseph.2.waller at bt.com
<mailto:joseph.waller at bt.com>  |W: www.bt.com/consulting