" The following article on HL7 Version 3 will give readers a glimpse into the significant differences between "what came before"--that is, HL7 Version 2.x--and "what today and the future will bring," which is the HL7 Version 3 family of data interchange specifications. The difference between V2.x and V3 is significant, and it exists because the various stakeholders in the HL7 development process believe that the increased depth, breadth, and, to some degree, complexity that characterize V3 are necessary to solve many of today's and tomorrow's increasingly wide, deep and complex healthcare information data interchange requirements. Like many healthcare or technology discussions, this discussion has its own vocabulary of somewhat obscure, but not difficult, terms. This article will define the minimum set that is necessary for readers to appreciate the relevance and capabilities of HL7 Version 3, including how it is different than HL7 Version 2. After that, there will be a brief overview of the primary motivations for HL7 Version 3 in the presence of the unequivocal success of Version 2. In this context, the article will give readers an overview of one of the prime constructs of Version 3, the Reference Information Model (RIM). There are 'four pillars that are necessary but not sufficient to obtain computable semantic interoperability." These four pillars--a cross-domain information model; a robust data type specification; a methodology for separating domain-specific terms from, as well as binding them to, the common model; and a top-down interchange specification methodology and tools for using 1, 2, 3 and defining Version 3 specification--collectively comprise the "HL7 Version 3 Toolkit." Further, this article will present a list of questions and answers to help readers assess the scope and complexity of the problems facing healthcare IT today, and which will further enlighten readers on the "reality" of HL7 Version 3. The article will conclude with a "pseudo-code" argument in favor of the adoption of HL7 Version 3, framed by citing the recommendation of the Interoperability Consortium for the use of HL7 Version 3 as a critical component in the National Health Information Infrastructure. "

" OBJECTIVES: To meet the challenge for high quality and efficient care, highly specialized and distributed healthcare establishments have to communicate and co-operate in a semantically interoperable way. Information and communication technology must be open, flexible, scalable, knowledge-based and service-oriented as well as secure and safe. METHODS: For enabling semantic interoperability, a unified process for defining and implementing the architecture, i.e. structure and functions of the cooperating systems' components, as well as the approach for knowledge representation, i.e. the used information and its interpretation, algorithms, etc. have to be defined in a harmonized way. Deploying the Generic Component Model, systems and their components, underlying concepts and applied constraints must be formally modeled, strictly separating platform-independent from platform-specific models. RESULTS: As HL7 Version 3 claims to represent the most successful standard for semantic interoperability, HL7 has been analyzed regarding the requirements for model-driven, service-oriented design of semantic interoperable information systems, thereby moving from a communication to an architecture paradigm. The approach is compared with advanced architectural approaches for information systems such as OMG's CORBA 3 or EHR systems such as GEHR/openEHR and CEN EN 13606 Electronic Health Record Communication. CONCLUSION: HL7 Version 3 is maturing towards an architectural approach for semantic interoperability. Despite current differences, there is a close collaboration between the teams involved guaranteeing a convergence between competing approaches. "

" Starting as a rather simple message standard to be used within hospitals, the scope of HL7 has been extended to covering all domains and institutions in health. The most important development of the HL7 standard set was its development towards a model-based message specification methodology and the further movement towards a unified development process: HL7 Version 3. The focus was design for interoperability, which is also the driving aspect of architectural standards such as OMG's CORBA or the CEN EN 13606 Electronic Health Record Communication. The paper gives an overview about the HL7 standard set, comparing it with the principles of advanced information systems architecture. "

" The following article on HL7 Version 3 will give readers a glimpse into the significant differences between "what came before"--that is, HL7 Version 2.x--and "what today and the future will bring," which is the HL7 Version 3 family of data interchange specifications. The difference between V2.x and V3 is significant, and it exists because the various stakeholders in the HL7 development process believe that the increased depth, breadth, and, to some degree, complexity that characterize V3 are necessary to solve many of today's and tomorrow's increasingly wide, deep and complex healthcare information data interchange requirements. Like many healthcare or technology discussions, this discussion has its own vocabulary of somewhat obscure, but not difficult, terms. This article will define the minimum set that is necessary for readers to appreciate the relevance and capabilities of HL7 Version 3, including how it is different than HL7 Version 2. After that, there will be a brief overview of the primary motivations for HL7 Version 3 in the presence of the unequivocal success of Version 2. In this context, the article will give readers an overview of one of the prime constructs of Version 3, the Reference Information Model (RIM). There are 'four pillars that are necessary but not sufficient to obtain computable semantic interoperability." These four pillars--a cross-domain information model; a robust data type specification; a methodology for separating domain-specific terms from, as well as binding them to, the common model; and a top-down interchange specification methodology and tools for using 1, 2, 3 and defining Version 3 specification--collectively comprise the "HL7 Version 3 Toolkit." Further, this article will present a list of questions and answers to help readers assess the scope and complexity of the problems facing healthcare IT today, and which will further enlighten readers on the "reality" of HL7 Version 3. The article will conclude with a "pseudo-code" argument in favor of the adoption of HL7 Version 3, framed by citing the recommendation of the Interoperability Consortium for the use of HL7 Version 3 as a critical component in the National Health Information Infrastructure. "

" OBJECTIVES: To meet the challenge for high quality and efficient care, highly specialized and distributed healthcare establishments have to communicate and co-operate in a semantically interoperable way. Information and communication technology must be open, flexible, scalable, knowledge-based and service-oriented as well as secure and safe. METHODS: For enabling semantic interoperability, a unified process for defining and implementing the architecture, i.e. structure and functions of the cooperating systems' components, as well as the approach for knowledge representation, i.e. the used information and its interpretation, algorithms, etc. have to be defined in a harmonized way. Deploying the Generic Component Model, systems and their components, underlying concepts and applied constraints must be formally modeled, strictly separating platform-independent from platform-specific models. RESULTS: As HL7 Version 3 claims to represent the most successful standard for semantic interoperability, HL7 has been analyzed regarding the requirements for model-driven, service-oriented design of semantic interoperable information systems, thereby moving from a communication to an architecture paradigm. The approach is compared with advanced architectural approaches for information systems such as OMG's CORBA 3 or EHR systems such as GEHR/openEHR and CEN EN 13606 Electronic Health Record Communication. CONCLUSION: HL7 Version 3 is maturing towards an architectural approach for semantic interoperability. Despite current differences, there is a close collaboration between the teams involved guaranteeing a convergence between competing approaches. "