This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "JSON based ITS"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: category:RIMBAA Issue ==Summary== [http://www.json.org JSON] encoding rather than XML. Or even binary/zipped. See also "(informational only) New ITS - RIM based ITS" [[RIMBAA_200901_...) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | [[category:RIMBAA Issue]] | + | [[category:Closed RIMBAA Issue]] |
+ | [[Image:Json-speeds-md-thumb.png|frame]] | ||
==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
[http://www.json.org JSON] encoding rather than XML. Or even binary/zipped. | [http://www.json.org JSON] encoding rather than XML. Or even binary/zipped. | ||
− | See also "(informational only) New ITS - RIM based ITS" [[RIMBAA_200901_WGM_Minutes]] | + | See also "(informational only) [[RIM based ITS|New ITS - RIM based ITS]]" [[RIMBAA_200901_WGM_Minutes]] |
==Analysis== | ==Analysis== | ||
XML is not the most performant way to send information. | XML is not the most performant way to send information. | ||
+ | Image taken from: http://viswaug.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/json-over-xml/ | ||
+ | JSON has proven to be much more efficient in parsing and size. | ||
+ | One thing I did not expect is that the JSON version (1596 chars) is larger than the XML version (1346 chars). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Example XML=== | ||
− | + | <organizer classCode="ORGANIZER" xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3"> | |
− | + | <templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.9" extension="660d999b-0157-41c2-8f2b-762d101aa279"/> | |
− | + | <code code="RJM2009021801" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.21" codeSystemName="UMCG Tijdelijk"> | |
+ | <originalText>Diagnosis</originalText> | ||
+ | </code> | ||
+ | <recordTarget typeCode="RCT"> | ||
+ | <patient classCode="PAT"> | ||
+ | <id root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.12" extension="2761703" assigningAuthorityName="UMCG"/> | ||
+ | </patient> | ||
+ | </recordTarget> | ||
+ | <component typeCode="COMP"> | ||
+ | <observation classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN"> | ||
+ | <id root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.31" extension="491216"/> | ||
+ | <code code="DX" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.16228" codeSystemName="ObservationDiagnosisTypes"/> | ||
+ | <text/> | ||
+ | <effectiveTime value="20060329"/> | ||
+ | <value xsi:type="CD" code="474.10" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.103" codeSystemName="ICD-9-CM"> | ||
+ | <originalText>Otitis media / niet gespecificeerd</originalText> | ||
+ | </value> | ||
+ | <author typeCode="AUT"> | ||
+ | <assignedEntity classCode="ASSIGNED"> | ||
+ | <id root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.8" extension="KNO"/> | ||
+ | </assignedEntity> | ||
+ | </author> | ||
+ | </observation> | ||
+ | </component> | ||
+ | </organizer> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Example JSON=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | "organizer": { "@classCode": "ORGANIZER", "@xmlns": "urn:hl7-org:v3", | ||
+ | "templateId": { | ||
+ | "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.9", | ||
+ | "@extension": "660d999b-0157-41c2-8f2b-762d101aa279" | ||
+ | }, | ||
+ | "code": { | ||
+ | "@code": "RJM2009021801", | ||
+ | "@codeSystem": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.21", | ||
+ | "@codeSystemName": "UMCG Tijdelijk", | ||
+ | "originalText": "Diagnosis" | ||
+ | }, | ||
+ | "recordTarget": { "@typeCode": "RCT", | ||
+ | "patient": { "@classCode": "PAT", | ||
+ | "id": { | ||
+ | "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.12", | ||
+ | "@extension: "2761703", | ||
+ | "@assigningAuthorityName": "UMCG" | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | }, | ||
+ | "component": { "@typeCode": "COMP", | ||
+ | "observation": { "@classCode": "OBS", "@moodCode": "EVN", | ||
+ | "id": { | ||
+ | "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.31", | ||
+ | "@extension": "491216" | ||
+ | }, | ||
+ | "code": { | ||
+ | "@code": "DX", | ||
+ | "@codeSystem": "2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.16228", | ||
+ | "@codeSystemName": "ObservationDiagnosisTypes" | ||
+ | }, | ||
+ | "text": null, | ||
+ | "effectiveTime" { "value": "20060329" }, | ||
+ | "value": { "@xsi:type": "CD", | ||
+ | "@code": "474.10", | ||
+ | "@codeSystem": "2.16.840.1.113883.6.103", | ||
+ | "@codeSystemName": "ICD-9-CM" | ||
+ | "originalText": "Otitis media / niet gespecificeerd" | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | "author": { "@typeCode": "AUT", | ||
+ | "assignedEntity": { "@classCode": "ASSIGNED", | ||
+ | "id": { | ||
+ | "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.8", | ||
+ | "@extension": "KNO" | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | }; | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
+ | * Validation using OCL? | ||
+ | * Validation using JSON Schema, see [http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=3847 New 'Orderly' schema threatens XML dominance?] | ||
+ | * Polymorphism and "xsi:type". In this example we see the "xsi:type" attribute being demoted to an "ordinary" attribute. In fact this should signal the JSON-processor that it should deserialize the data to a certain type. Unfortunately JSON does not yet support this kind of typing. How to handle this? | ||
+ | *Closed the RIMBAA issue. If this moves forward, it will have to be as a proposal to the [[ITS WG]]. |
Latest revision as of 13:47, 27 January 2010
Summary
JSON encoding rather than XML. Or even binary/zipped. See also "(informational only) New ITS - RIM based ITS" RIMBAA_200901_WGM_Minutes
Analysis
XML is not the most performant way to send information. Image taken from: http://viswaug.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/json-over-xml/ JSON has proven to be much more efficient in parsing and size. One thing I did not expect is that the JSON version (1596 chars) is larger than the XML version (1346 chars).
Example XML
<organizer classCode="ORGANIZER" xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3">
<templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.9" extension="660d999b-0157-41c2-8f2b-762d101aa279"/>
<code code="RJM2009021801" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.21" codeSystemName="UMCG Tijdelijk">
<originalText>Diagnosis</originalText>
</code>
<recordTarget typeCode="RCT">
<patient classCode="PAT">
<id root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.12" extension="2761703" assigningAuthorityName="UMCG"/>
</patient>
</recordTarget>
<component typeCode="COMP">
<observation classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN">
<id root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.31" extension="491216"/>
<text/>
<effectiveTime value="20060329"/>
<value xsi:type="CD" code="474.10" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.103" codeSystemName="ICD-9-CM">
<originalText>Otitis media / niet gespecificeerd</originalText>
</value>
<author typeCode="AUT">
<assignedEntity classCode="ASSIGNED">
<id root="2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.8" extension="KNO"/>
</assignedEntity>
</author>
</observation>
</component>
</organizer>
Example JSON
"organizer": { "@classCode": "ORGANIZER", "@xmlns": "urn:hl7-org:v3", "templateId": { "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.9", "@extension": "660d999b-0157-41c2-8f2b-762d101aa279" }, "code": { "@code": "RJM2009021801", "@codeSystem": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.21", "@codeSystemName": "UMCG Tijdelijk", "originalText": "Diagnosis" }, "recordTarget": { "@typeCode": "RCT", "patient": { "@classCode": "PAT", "id": { "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.12", "@extension: "2761703", "@assigningAuthorityName": "UMCG" } } }, "component": { "@typeCode": "COMP", "observation": { "@classCode": "OBS", "@moodCode": "EVN", "id": { "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.31", "@extension": "491216" }, "code": { "@code": "DX", "@codeSystem": "2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.16228", "@codeSystemName": "ObservationDiagnosisTypes" }, "text": null, "effectiveTime" { "value": "20060329" }, "value": { "@xsi:type": "CD", "@code": "474.10", "@codeSystem": "2.16.840.1.113883.6.103", "@codeSystemName": "ICD-9-CM" "originalText": "Otitis media / niet gespecificeerd" } "author": { "@typeCode": "AUT", "assignedEntity": { "@classCode": "ASSIGNED", "id": { "@root": "2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.8.1000.8", "@extension": "KNO" } } } } } };
Discussion
- Validation using OCL?
- Validation using JSON Schema, see New 'Orderly' schema threatens XML dominance?
- Polymorphism and "xsi:type". In this example we see the "xsi:type" attribute being demoted to an "ordinary" attribute. In fact this should signal the JSON-processor that it should deserialize the data to a certain type. Unfortunately JSON does not yet support this kind of typing. How to handle this?
- Closed the RIMBAA issue. If this moves forward, it will have to be as a proposal to the ITS WG.