Answers from CAF Simplification project
Here are provisional answers to the 12 questions asked on the parent wiki page for simplification projects, as suggested by the UK CAF simplification project:
Q: What practical methods and tools exist today for fast-track implementation of V3 and CDA exchanges? What is their current status, scope, and experience with their use?
A: The tools being used in the UK give automated support for the steps needed to define a simplified V3 or CDA message. They are currentlyt being piloted on the CAF simplification project.
Q: How much can be achieved with these methods, in terms of reduced XML complexity, implementation effort, learning time, or any other metrics?
A:
Q: Are they to be regarded only as a fast route to implementing the full messages, or are there cases where the simplified XML forms can be exchanged over the wire? What are the benefits and drawbacks, and what would be needed to make it acceptable?
A:
Q: Is it necessary for a full round-trip (full=>simplified=> full) to be automatically and reliably supported by transforms?
A:
Q: Is it useful to define simplified XML forms for closed sub-domains of CDA and V3 domains, or should the definitions have some of the semantic openness of full V3 and CDA? Can this be done consistent with full round-trips?
A:
Q: How are the semantic relations between simplified XML and RIM-based semantic models to be defined and recorded?
A:
Q: What is the process for developing a simplified V3 or CDA definition, the transforms between the simplified and full forms, and the semantic relations between them? What tools support the process? How automated and reliable is the process?
A:
Q: What are the processes for testing a simplified V3 or CDA form, both in its definition and in deployment?
A:
Q: What are the processes for maintaining the definitions of simplified forms through successive versions, as requirements change or as the underlying HL7 definitions evolve through versions?
A:
Q: Are there other artifacts, such as simplified domain models , which can usefully be developed in tandem with the simplified XML forms?
A:
Q: What should be the full ‘kit of parts’ in an implementation guide for a simplified form?
A:
Q: Can these ‘simplification methodologies’ be applied equally well to the other HL7 content models (messages and SOA content models)?
A:
