Strategy Challenges for HL7 Tooling

WGM-Jan. 2009

© 2002-2008 Health Level Seven ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven, Inc. Reg. U.S. Pat & TM Off

DRAFT—for discussion purposes only

Strategy Challenges forHL7 Tooling

John QuinnJanuary 10, 2009

2

WGM-Jan. 2009

© 2002-2008 Health Level Seven ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven, Inc. Reg. U.S. Pat & TM Off DRAFT—for discussion purposes only

The Requirements

• We (HL7) and its users use tooling as it relates to V3 family products for:– Balloting and Publishing the V3 Normative

Version that is published each Spring.– Create CDA Implementation Guides through a

templating process (e.g., CCD);– Creating V3 messaging Implementation

Guides/Specifications for “programming” the interface;

3

WGM-Jan. 2009


The Users

• V3 products are now much more widely used around the world than even two years ago.

• Users include governments and government funded entities (e.g., NHS, CHI, Turkey, US (HITSP (CCD), US VA, US MHS).

• The exact forms of use (i.e., messaging, electronic documents or services) varies as well as their approach and methodology.

4

WGM-Jan. 2009


The Users

• We now have four major stakeholder-users:– NHS CfH– CDA Community– Canada Health Infoway– HITSP / US Federal Health Architecture

• HL7 V3 is not being applied to any two stakeholders in the same way. No two of the stakeholders have the same problem-set or the same approach and use of HL7.

5

WGM-Jan. 2009


The Methodology

• Methodologies across users vary significantly.• HL7 has an HDF Methodology that:

– Is rich in describing the processes for WG project initiation and processes going forward to balloting

– Is wanting in describing the process needed for users to take the Standard and produce IGs. Any growth in this area requires new user tooling that does not presently exist.

• As a user, the NHS has adopted the publishing/balloting tools and methodology as the basis for producing their IGs. They have further invested significantly in enhancing the core tool (R-MIM modeler) that they now want to make available to all users via OHT.

6

WGM-Jan. 2009


HL7 Has Three Camps

• The “Camps” described here are not necessarily competing. However, HL7 has limited resources (time and money) and all three “camps” combined create an oversubscription of these resources.

• Also, the three “camps” are not aligned and doing all three as currently proposed would create duplicative/competitive methodologies

7

WGM-Jan. 2009


Camp 1• The current Tooling WG’s plan:

– Prioritize the balloting/publishing requirements– Focus on creating a sharable database of artifacts and ballotable pieces for

shared ballot development– Make use of the NHS Static R-MIM modeling tools but maintain the use of

the HL7 MIF2 Model Interchange Format– Make templating tools a next “high priority”– Eventually Move to UML-based “COTS” tools (i.e., RUP) but only after

questions are resolved about:• Completeness and HL7 Developer familiarity of UML graphics vs. current Visio

graphics• The HDF is upgraded to reflect the current tools (it supports neither now)• The Tooling WG is convinced that UML/XMI will communicate methodology, rules

and context

– Proponents are the HL7 Tooling WG with thought leadership from Woody Beeler.

8

WGM-Jan. 2009


HL7

Tac

tical

Too

ling

Step

sFig C: HL7 Tools Tactical Steps

Open SourceMIF- basedObjective

(Access & VBA)

PubDb PublishFrom MIF2

WYSIWYGEditorMI F Annotations

PubDb FunctionalityTo Eclipse

MIF2 Content ExtractA

Static Model Dsgn(Visio)

NHS – CFH Development I nitiative

Testing Documentation Education MigrationB

V3 StandardsManaged in XML

WYSIWYG Editor f orV3 (MI F) Annotations

V3 Standards in XMLDesktopC

Publish/FacilitatDesktopANT-XSL

Change QA/Ref Checks to build MIF2fi leSubmission Manifest f rom above

Version/Tag processes f or WG/ Piub

Single Facilitators/Publishers Desktop

in EclipseD

V3 GeneratorANT-XSL

Make all “output” processes use MIF2 fi lesas source rather than MI F1 fi les E

Vocabulary Maintainance(J ava/ CTS-I )

Defi ne Req’ts/ Architecture

Contract & Execute

RFPto build / test/ transit’n

Acceptancetest & I ntegrateG

Standard Artifact Repository/Registry

Various

I ncl: OI D Registry; Standard artifacts;Profiles; I mplemnt’ns

Distinguish requirements: Versioned MI F repository vs. Standard Registry

Agree on Preferred Platform(s)

I nit iate RFP Preocessto obtain theseH

Needed ToolComponents

Various FInstance Example Generator

Static Model Refinement

Model Validation and Testing

Generalized ANT Desktop Ballot DIFF

9

WGM-Jan. 2009


Camp 2

• Closely aligned with Camp 1 except:– Templating tools must be priority 1– Largely driven by a real need for tools and

methodologies for creating CDA implementation guides. The largest world-wide real growth in the use of V3 appears to be coming from CDA implementations

– Bob Dolan is the chief proponent.

10

WGM-Jan. 2009


Camp 3

• Make a “bold” move and give priority to moving the HDF and HL7 tooling rapidly to COTS UML based tooling and the methodologies that these tools can support.

• Use the introduction of an HL7 Architecture (i.e., the SAEAF Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework) as the event to launch the development of a well documented user methodology and tools to support that methodology that could be used by “average?” HL7 users.

• IBM has assisted the VA in demonstrating that the IBM Rational Unified Process (i.e., RUP) can import the current MIF2 representation of the RIM.

• IBM has offered to provide restricted free access to RUP for HL7 Developers.

• Chief proponent is Ioana Singureanu and has been proposed to the VA.

11

WGM-Jan. 2009


Complications

• The publishing of V3 Normative Edition is fragile and out-right failed in 2007 because of this fragility.

• HL7 publishing of V3 Normative Editions is at risk until new tools and methodologies are finished.

• NHS, CHI, VA and others all appear to have different approaches, tool requirements and methodologies in their use of HL7 V3.

WGM-Jan. 2009

© 2002-2008 Health Level Seven ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven, Inc. Reg. U.S. Pat & TM Off

DRAFT—for discussion purposes only

Tooling Tactical Plan

Plan forward for current tooling addressed problem set

13

WGM-Jan. 2009

© 2002-2008 Health Level Seven ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven, Inc. Reg. U.S. Pat & TM Off DRAFT—for discussion purposes only July 31, 2008

Current Publication Process

14

WGM-Jan. 2009


Fig A: HL7 Tools & Data Flow – 12/08

PublishingProcess

ANT-drivenProcesses;

XSL transforms

gif , jpg, or png“other” Graphics

(graphic editor) Ext

HTML BallotSchemasTable ViewsExcel filesMIF FilesQA Rpts

“dynamic model” (XML)(Access Forms/ VBA)

PubDb*Ext

static model xml

RMIM Designer(Visio)

Ext “clicakble” graphics (PNG & HTML)

“other” Material(various)

PDF, XLS, etc.

V3 StandardsManaged in XML

(XML editor)HL7 Specification DTD (xml based on W3C publishing)

SchemasTable ViewsExcel filesMIF FilesQA

V3 GeneratorANT-drivenXSL/ J ava

“cmetI nfo” txt

Legend: HL7 support tool(characterization)

“content” typeData flow

ExtFile extraction or conversion process. Most depend on – RoseTree & Repository

DesignRepository*

RI M/ Vocabulary“Source of Truth”

(Access)

Ext “static hmd” xml

Ext “RI M/Vocab” xml

Ext Vocabulary CoreMif MI F2.1.x

Vocabulary Maintainance(J ava/ CTS-I )

Vocab Maint Langxml

*Standard Artifact Repository Current PubDbs and Design Repositories* can be merged (across domains) to provide a single, queryableresource to support artif acts defi ned and balloted by HL7

15

WGM-Jan. 2009

© 2002-2008 Health Level Seven ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven, Inc. Reg. U.S. Pat & TM Off DRAFT—for discussion purposes only July 31, 2008

Future Publication Process

16

WGM-Jan. 2009


17

WGM-Jan. 2009


Current Tooling Tactical Plan

Tooling Work Group - Strategic Plan

2008 2009 2010

Participate in MIF establishment via Static Model Designer Project (B)

Liaise with OHT Projects (E, F, G)

Transform Publishing processing to MIF based (A, C, D)

Upgrade GForge (done)

Upgrade Schema Generator to Generate from MIF 2 (E)

Produce Documentation and Training Material for all Tools

18

WGM-Jan. 2009


Still to determine

• G: Vocabulary Maintenance– Gathering Requirements– Monitor OHT IHTSDO Terminology Services Project– Determine investment/development strategy

• H: Standard Artifact Repository/Registry– Identify investment/collaboration opportunities– Requirements

19

WGM-Jan. 2009


Capabilities for Template Design & Registry

CDA Template DesignDocumenter

1.1.0

Static ModelConstraint

EditingUI

1,1,1

OnlineTemplateRegistry

1.2.0

Static ModelValidator

0.2

Static ModelSerializer

2.1

Meta datacapture

UI1.2.2

XpathTransformer

2.2

ConstraintAssembler

1.1.2

IdentityGenerator

1.2.3

StandardizedRule

Generator2.3

TemplateRegistry

data manager1.2.4

TemplateRegistry

UserAuthentication

1.2.1

TransformGenerator

2.4

ExampleInstance

Generator3.1

FileImporter

0.3

FileExporter

0.4

VocabularyBinding

Interface1.1.1.1

TemplateSearch &

Select0.1

F

E

H

B

20

WGM-Jan. 2009


CDA Template Constraint CapabilitiesStatic Model Constraint Authoring

attribute constraint

2.1.1

Constrain encoded attributes via Vocabulary binding2.1.1.3.1

Static Model

Constraint2

relationship constraint

2.1.2

Constrain Data typeproperties

2.1.1.4

Static model element constraint 2.0

Conditional constraint 2.0.1

Constrain Valid

values2.1.1.3

Constrainrepetition2.1.2,2Constrain

repetition2.1.1.2

ConstrainRelationship

presence2.1.2.1

Constrainconformance

2.1.1.5

Constrainconformance

2.1.2.5

Constrainpresence2.1.1.1 Constrain

Class Presence or choice2.1.2.3

Constraincoding

strength2.1.1.3.1.5

SubstituteCMET2.1.2.4

Vocabulary binding choices2.1.1.3.6

Vocabulary attribute binding choice across classes2.1.1.3.7

Constrain Data type2.1.1.4.1

constrainstring

2.1.1.3.2

constrainnumeric

value range

2.1.1.3.3

Constrainvalid values

using operators and other attribute values

2.1.1.3.4

Constrain static model element using computational operators 2.0.2

Context Conditional Constraint 2.0.3

ConstrainUpdate Mode

2.1.2.6

ConstrainUpdate Mode

2.1.1.6

Can do now

Can’t do yet

Single code - 2.1.1.3.1.4

Concept Domain2.1.1.3.1.1

Code System - 2.1.1.3.1.2

Value Set - 2.1.1.3.1.3

21

WGM-Jan. 2009


Continuing Collaboration

• Tooling Work Group to coordinate with Publishing, Electronic Services and Education Work Groups

• Providing opportunity to examine tooling developed by other volunteers, Open Source projects

• Continuing to collaborate with OHT

Documents

Strategy Challenges for HL7 Tooling