HL7 2.x is purely focus on message exchange. No matter what the internal system architecture or database schema looks like, only if the in and out-coming message conforms to HL7 standard, then you are OK.
HL7 3.x will have significant influence on system architecture and database design; basically, HL7 V3 RIM borrows ideas from UML, but is different from UML. RIM is tending to be more restriction along with class derivation. RIM Model can be developed by using VISIO or ROSE, and then converted to either drafted programming language application (i.e. JAVA) or relational database schema, thus, it will impact on system design and application development.
Also, I'd like to point out that only discussing HL7 without mentioning vocabulary/terminology standard, the meaning of HL7 discussion is impaired very much. For instance, A, B, C are all using HL7 for communication, but A send HL7 message in English, B's message is in Chinese, and C's message is in Spanish, lacking standard vocabulary and terminology, even all A, B, C are HL7 compliance, but they can not communicate with each other, and it is the issue why HL7 V3 get developed...
I think to define or develop some vocabulary/terminology standards are also very important, same as HL7, for ensuring bright future of CHIS. |