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

[joseph.2.waller@bt.com]

Graham,

The two questions are actually kinda related.

Question 1 - When you create a WSDL you include a description of the
interface as an xsd. This means that you generally include an xsd for
each message that makes up that service. HL7 Wrappers necessarily
re-describe the Control Act in every message which means that a WSDL
validator (for example try XML Spy) will reject a WSDL as the combined
description is trying to describe the same complex type more than once.

Question 2 - This would not happen is the transmission information was
in a separate header. This would allow a WSDL to refer to a generic
sending header for all messages. Further, this way that the HL7 message
is necessarily wrapped in a wrapper rather than sat alongside an
associated header suggests that they were designed for a protocol that
does not use headers. i.e. putting an HL7 message directly in HTTP
rather than inside SOAP or any SOAP related protocol such as ebXML or
WS-Reliable Messaging.

If InM are revisiting the transmission content I think it is important
that they make the model a) more flexible with more easily separatable
transmission information b) contain extensibility elements or - if the
transmission information is more seperated - at least allow the profiles
to suggest ways of using the extensibility mechanisms in those
protocols' headers. The improved relation of HL7 to process choreography
will be useful too, as currently the concepts of 'trigger events' and
'interactions' are as you imply not well aligned with wider facilities
for process choreography in things like WS-Transactions and WS-Reliable
messaging.

I recognise I'm not saying anything revolutionary,

Joe


-----Original Message-----
From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grahameg at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Grahame
Grieve
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:19 AM
To: Waller,J,Joseph,JPGA3Y C
Cc: new-its at lists.hl7.org.uk
Subject: Re: [New-ITS] [New ITS] - Industry Tool Support

> '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.

I guess this and below are two separate issues. Can you be specific
about this one?

> 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).

no, not http, any basic communication protocol where there is a clear an
absolute separation between protocol and content, and protocol only
deals with network communication

InM are revisiting the transmission content, and part of our
non-functional requirements will be to figure out how to deliver to our
functional requirements for data exchange with HL7 content and process
choreography in the context of communication protocols that provide much
richer functionality than those anticipated.

Grahame