RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: Multimedia content management with HL7 V3 messages

Pim,

 

Could you also point them at the implementation NIH has please -

 

 http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/system.htm

 

This supports "staged delivery" where really large payloads can be setup
for pulling - so you can optimize bandwidth usage - and do queued delivery.

 

Also - CDC PHIN has implemented their own mechanism to allow splitting
and then re-assembling of large payloads using ebXML messaging  (aka - this is similar to the bittorrent approach - except of course you have secure transmission - with reliable delivery - rather than sending fragments over a public network - that rely on peers being online).

 

At NIH we have successfully sent 150Mb attachments using Hermes and
ebMS.  The typical payload is 3MB to 5MB.  Next we intend to test OrionSMG and NEXUSe2e in these environments to see how they handle this transaction mix too.

 

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: [ebxml-msg] FW: Multimedia content management with HL7
V3
messages
From: "Pim van der Eijk" <>
Date: Wed, March 21, 2007 3:02 pm
To: <>

Hello,

There is some discussion on the HL7 transports list on a document
on
multimedia attachments:

http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/xml/Multimedia%20Content%20Management%
20with%20HL7v3%20Messages%2Edoc 

I've sent some information on how ebMS2 already supports this and how
ebMS3
might help them even better, see below.

Kind regards,

Pim

-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:] 
Sent: 21 March 2007 19:55
To: 'Miroslav Koncar (ZG/ETK)'; 'Marc de Graauw'; '';
''
Subject: RE: Multimedia content management with HL7 V3 messages

Hello,

The ebXML Messaging version 2 specification (OASIS standard since 2002,
ISO

15000-2 since 2004) has supported a mechanism for attachments to
be

referenced (from Manifest/Reference elements in the SOAP header)
using
either "content id" references to payloads included in the

SOAP-with-atthachments MIME envelop (so part of the message and
physically

transmitted) and other URLs (parts referenced only, not part of the
physical

message), such as an https or ftp URL to some remote BLOB store, or an
mms:
URL to a streaming video server.  

The idea of separating large attachments from messages to support
on-demand,

efficient processing is very common. It is widely known as the "Claim
Check"
pattern.  See:
http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/StoreInLibrary.html

The next version of ebXML Messaging is ebMS3.  The first part is
effectively

done and provides convergence with Web Services (for security
and

reliability) and some additional functionality for SMEs.  Work on
the second

part will start soon and one of the topics I've heard considered for
part

two are splitting (large messages so they can be transmitted in parts)
and

batching/connection sharing (in extremely high volume situations it may
be

more efficient to combine small messages in a single connection, as
is
common in some JMS implementations).

If you have requirements that would make ebMS3 better suited to
healthcare
messaging, please contact the OASIS ebXML Messaging committee.

Pim

-----Original Message-----
From:  [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Miroslav Koncar (ZG/ETK)
Sent: 07 March 2007 16:18
To: Marc de Graauw; ; 
Subject: RE: Multimedia content management with HL7 V3 messages

Hi Marc, 

> 

> There are two major issues with SWA: large binary files are sent as
a 

> single MIME attachment, so failure means resending the entire
thing, 

> and SWA does not allow signing the attachment along with the
message.

> MTOM could alleviate the second problem, but is for SOAP 1.2. Any

> thoughts on this problem?
> 

> As for the paper by Miroslav c.s., it's a solid overview, but I do

> find it a bit strange that (rightly) using URL's to retrieve the

> external BLOB is recommended where possible, but SWA or MTOM is

> rejected on the grounds that the relation between HL7 message and
BLOB 

> is delegated to the 'transport', i.e. SOAP and SWA, whereas in the
URL 

> case the relation it is delegated to the URI and HTTP protocols. So

> why is it acceptable for URI's but not for SWA?
> 

If I understand your point correctly, the general difference I guess
would

be in regards to the bandwidth usage. When you transfer a BLOB in the
HL7

message, everthing will be transferred in the same package as you point
out,

and if it fails, the most likely thing to happen is resending the
entire

package once again. It is most likely that this will happen during
the

business hours, and would consume lots of resources. On the other hand,
if

you transfer a reference only, the Receiver might choose to fetch the
BLOB

later on, or not to fetch it at all if the textual infromation seems to
be

enough (e.g. GP getting the radiologist specialist opinion, that only
for
auditing purposes needs the MRI image from the patient). 

But, at the end of the day, it is very much again project and
implementers
decision how to meet this requirement. 

Thanks, all the best,
Miroslav

************************************************

To access the Archives of this or other lists or change your list
settings
and information, go to: http: //www.hl7.org/listservice