hello i am going to develop a web based application that is Electronic Health records one of the constraints is the my system should follow a communication standard that is complied by most of such type of applications.
i go for a standard known as HL7 health level 7 but i am bit confused!
problem is i can't differentiate between the two standards (HL7 and CDA 2.0) may be they have some relationship with each other but i am not sure about it any one can help me|????
thanx in advance
Health Level 7 (HL7) is a non-profit organization providing a framework and related standards for exchange and retrieval of electronic health information. Their standards relate to documents, messaging, applications and concepts.
CDA 2.0 is one of their standards relating to clinical documents such as discharge summaries and progress notes.
Related
I am looking for "authentication as a service" (fully managed, Google or any other 3rd party) that provides authentication for a web-service on Google Cloud Platform with (user) data stored on servers located in the European Union.
Currently, we use Firebase Authentication with Google as Identity Provider for authentication. After the cancelation of the US-privacy-shield last summer, we formally have to search for something else, as Firebase Authentication is currently an US service only (https://firebase.google.com/support/privacy).
Please only technical advise, as we have discussed the lets-wait-and-see option in depth already.
I am aware that you are looking for technical advise only for another Europe based authentication service, but it maybe worth mentioning that The Privacy Shield frameworks provided a mechanism to comply with data protection requirements when transferring EEA, Swiss, or UK personal data to the United States and onwards. In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling on data transfers, Firebase has made updates to their terms to add the relevant Standard Contractual Clauses as adopted by the European Commission, which, as per the ruling, can continue to be a valid legal mechanism to transfer data under the GDPR.
Has anyone been able to build hippa and Pippa compliant apps using firebase. More specifically for real time and chat messaging?
some rules require data to reside in Canada.
The Seven Fundamental Elements of an Effective Hippa Compliance Program represent the barebones requirements that HIPAA compliant apps must have in place in order to address HIPAA privacy and security standards. The Seven Elements include:
Implementing written policies, procedures and standards of conduct
Designating a compliance officer and compliance committee
Conducting effective training and education
Developing effective lines of communication
Conducting internal monitoring and auditing
Enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines
Responding promptly to detected offenses and undertaking corrective action
Both ESB and BPM tools that I have worked on take in some input , call multiple steps to fulfill a task. The difference that I have seen is that in ESB everything is automated - the process is automatically triggered and involves a number of external calls / data is transformed and sent to appropriate system for consumption. In case of BPM system , the process is either started manually or automatically and it involved series of decision steps some of which involve manual decision steps.Once the steps are done , the task is marked as complete. Is it possible to explain the clear distinction between BPM and ESB?
I think you are right that anything achievable with a BPM can be achieved just fine with an ESB and some Web UI that enables invocation of manual steps. But this is true if you are only looking strictly from the technical point of view. In a more mature SOA, where a lot of different parties and roles are involved, both ESB and BPM have their distinct place.
The distinction you're looking for is more "fuzzy" and it is about the focus of these tools, their intended end-users and the type of logic they compose. Here is my humble attempt at explaining the difference between ESB and BPM:
Focus and goals
ESB is more focused on enablement of interoperability, separation of concerns, and abstraction of technical details. It has much more of an infrastructural role, it also cares about monitoring, scalability performance, availability, state deferral. In the ESB your goal is to enable the creation of a federated interoperable layer, by abstracting all technical details and to exposing reusable functionality.
BPM is more business-focused and in a perfect world scenario it is managed by business people and business analysts themselves that modify processes without having any idea about any technical details. The BPMN language is all about workflows and is designed to be business-friendly. In the BPM your goal is to implement real business processes by using these building blocks.
Intended users
ESB services will be governed by architects and custodians (still, in accordance to requirements by business analysts).
BPM workflows will ideally be managed and modified by business people, business analysts and the like.
Composed logic
In a BPM the compositions (workflows) consist of business-oriented tasks (e.g. check customer loyalty level and give him a discount if user X approves and his level is gold).
In the ESB the compositions generally consist of more technical services (e.g. retrieve this from the database, combine with that from this component, transform with xslt). It is possible to have an orchestrated task that implements an entire workflow the way a BPM does, that is entirely business-centric and without any reusability whatsoever, but you don't have the handy tools and visualisation to be able to easily delegate the management of this business logic to business people.
Having said all the above, ideally if you have a mature SOA, you'll have a BPM layer on top of one or multiple ESBs and corresponding Service Inventories that have:
Entity and Utility services on the bottom (implemented in the ESBs)
Task, and in some cases Orchestrated Task services that compose said entity and utility services (implemented in the ESBs)
Workflows that use and reuse all these services in the BPM layer on top of the ESBs.
I hope this gave you a good initial idea of the differences. Feel free to ask if you need more information.
Plamen's answer is already very good. I disagree with the introduction
anything achievable with a BPM can be achieved just fine with an ESB
and some Web UI that enables invocation of manual steps
His later explanation puts this into perspective though.
From the top of my head some aspects a modern Business Process Management Suite (BPMS) handles (better) in comparison to an ESB:
Graphical modelling of the business process suitable for domain experts
No technical detail required, e.g. without service composition
the right granularity is reached when the task performer can be specific automated (system) vs manual (Human, possibly with system support).Below this granularity level the service composition start (ESB)
Simulation of the workflow (without or without services connectivity), based on assumptions or real-life audit data
Dashboard and Reporting features for operational control, tactical analysis and strategic continuous process improvement (all on business level / KPIs)
Organizational modeling, management of authorizations
task routing and assignment based on the business process model (e.g. roles) or dynamic based on conditions, business rules, decision tables, real-time analysis of user skills, workload and capacities, etc.
Management of the context of the business process, e.g. business objects, documents,references to data in external systems, references to other workflows belonging to the same business entity
Keeping an Audit Trail of all activities on business level (not a log file)
Comprehensive worklist management and search features
Features to operational management like definition and monitoring of business SLAs, priorities, benchmarks, criticalities, automated or manual task delegation
Organizational aspect like deputy management, business calendar
initiation of or changes to existing workflows based on defined internal or external technical or business events
BPMS and ESBs are complementary systems. The BPMS is the business layer which orchestrates the composite business services defined in the underlying ESB layer. The ESB layer is a technical mitigation layer which supports the definition of basics services, their aggregation into composite services and other aspects like transformation and standardization of data formats. Since the layers are close the products in both areas have adopted more and more features from the the other layer. The overlaps are increasing as the vendors extend their feature sets.
Depending on the complexity of the system landscape a comprehensive BPMS which covers many ESB features can make an ESB obsolete. An ESB which extends into the business layer is unlikely to reach the feature set and ease of use required by business users. If an ESB reached this business level then it would likely be rebranded and offered as a BPMS.
If you compare the website of ESB's like Mule and BPMS like Eclipse Stardust then the different focus (technical integration platform vs business process management: modeling, simulation, execution, reporting, analysis & improvement) should become evident.
I'm looking to design a SOA service which in addition to its main requirements has a requirement for a small number of reports.
When should SOA services (a) include their own reporting functionality, and when should (b) reports be made available as part of a separate reporting service?
I guess (a) makes the service more self-contained, but (b) should probably be preferred when the organisation already has reporting services deployed?
You can/should report on individual services if the report is self contained and relates to data that changes frequently.
It is ok to use a centralised reporting when the data is immutable i.e. historic copy of the data. This way the services are still the owners of the data (and responsible for updating the data) and the data is still available for cross-service reports. This is a pattern I call aggregated reporting (you can see a draft of it here)
You can see an article I published on infoQ called bridging the gap between BI & SOA
Learning about SOA. Is it mostly decoupling by way of web services, one service provides web services to another, thereby staying decoupled and encapsulated? Thanks.
edit: that and maybe a good front end to them like some MVC design?
SOA is commonly implemented using web services but can be implemented using any method of decoupling the service implementation from the interface. These are then often presented to the business in a directory when apps can request details for any service provision that offers the desired service criteria.
MVC is a pattern for applications that could access SOA but I would use the best pattern for your application rather than trying to shoehorn into a single pattern. Just remember that SOA calls are likely to be operated asynchronously.
Here's an answer I provided to another question a while ago which may help with SOA principles: Rebuild N-tier app into Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)?
Also the following is an intro to SOA: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-soa-design1/
In short there's a lot more to it than just web-services, its how you make available coarse grained 'business services' for reuse by multiple systems, and how you then make calls across multiple business services to meet wider business processes.
Developing some web-services != SOA
Here is a good selection of links that challenge the idea that SOA is only about web services, it explores the idea that every class in the application is a service and we can use many different transports (web, tcp, queues) within our SOA. SOA is the methodology you use to build a service orientated application.
Here are some practical examples of how to build a SOA.
I would suggest you read articles by Thomas Erl and Roger Sessions, this will give you a firm handle on what SOA is all about.
SOA Design Pattern
Achieving integrity in a SOA
Why your SOA should be like a VW Beetle
SOA explained for your boss
Building a SOA
WCF Service Performance
Choosing a presentation pattern for a new or enterprise web development is a daunting task, in my opinion there are only three; View Model, Model-View-Presenter (MVP) or ASP.NET MVC (a Model2 derivative).
You can read the full article here ASP.NET MVC Patterns
Despite the (incorrect) selected answer I have to state that SOA has nothing to do with web services.
The "service" term is so overloaded in English, so people are getting confused sometimes.
SOA is an architectural style, a set of guidances and principles that help us model our systems as "systems which consist of other systems".
The service term in SOA can be defined as a "technical authority for a specific business capability".
SOA helps to deal with coupling between capabilities, including temporal and spatial coupling.
As you can see, designing your system as an open set of loosely coupled and self-responsible systems (services) has nothing to do with using web services, WCF or other "cool things". You may use them or you may not use them. Or use them in one context, but not in another.
Most definitely you will NOT use web services as a communication protocol between your services in SOA because they immediately introduce temporal and spatial coupling.