以前认为要达到HL7的要求，要整套系统都要符合HL7上面的要求，现在才知道，不需要这样，只需要你提供的接口符合HL7要求就可以了，例如HIS要和支持HL7的PACS做接口，只需要作出符合HL7要求的接口就可以了，不需要整个系统都要符合HL7.
原来的想法很滑稽吧，不知道各位同仁有没有和我一样想法的？

所谓的Engine方式和Ready方式的差别
但Engine方式有很大的局限性

[QUOTE]最初由 uchinaboy 发表
[B]所谓的Engine方式和Ready方式的差别
但Engine方式有很大的局限性 [/B][/QUOTE]


Most of the HIS systems are HL7 "ready". The interface "Engine" is a tool to get 2 or more "Hl7 ready" systems to talk together.

Most of the hl7 engines are working as a mapper or/and  a router.

Most of the HIS systems are HL7 "ready".

Really? In China or In North American?

其实hl7的内涵远不止如此。目前只用到如何进行通讯，而对行业本身的数据使用如何？

如何才能叫“提供这个接口”？

发生消息：data xml到hl 7.0 xml格式：
接受消息：hl 7.0 xml 到data xml格式，在写表。

如果认为HL7是接口消息的数据格式，也就相当于一个接口参数，那确实是没有必要在系统内部使用的。
如果认为HL7的事件相当于一个用例，则系统不管是使用READY还是ENGINE的方式，都是必须实现这个用例的。
不识庐山真面目，只缘身在此山中。
HL7是什么？也许怪只怪level seven这个名字不好。或者当时是好的，但情况变了，现在又不好了。

看了一些对PACS/RIS与HIS整合的说明文档，感觉HL就是起到定义一个消息引擎的作用，实现PACS/RIS与HIS系统之间的数据交换。同样DICOM标准在医学领域中感觉也只是为了负责在医学成像设备之间的数字信息的交换。因为医学成像设备可以允许他的医学设备互操作，所以觉得HL与DICOM都是办演着同样的角色。对否？请大虾指点！

本意确实是如此，但这是治标不治本的。
如同EAI（企业应用集成），也是因为前期规划不够，形成了信息孤岛，所以必须用到集成了。
但这是对于既有系统的。
标准也是在发展的。或者这个标准没有变化，又另外出了一个新的标准。

嗬嗬，想法是对的，但是目前hl7搞这么多事，就是要你慢慢放弃这种想法。把它的应用也慢慢深入到系统设计的里面去。

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.

[QUOTE]最初由 jdli 发表
[B]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... [/B][/QUOTE]

不然就缺少内容

HL7消息的“列车”中携带的就是这些“底层”的“物资”

内容标准（Content Standards）值得重视

The thing is HL7 RIM is a logical model only. Developing a correct message is another business.

Yes, the RIM is a concept model, by referring to RIM only, you can't develop concrete message for certain domain, but if you take close look at the Domain Message Information Model(DMIM), Refinded Message Information Model(RMIM) and Hierarchical Message Description (HMD), you can find that HL7 RIM is actually clearly specify how a message should be structured. In brief, it is RIM -> DMIM -> RMIM -> HMD -> Concrete Message.