Context of Interoperability (2)
May 14, 2011Charlie Mead sent me this, from the NCI CBIIT Enterprise Service Specification Team, since it’s quite relevant to several of my posts. 
This diagram is a different way to look at my comments about both the Context of Interoperability, and whether we need Semantic Interoperability. I wrote:
HL7, Interoperability in the worst case
But the fact is, interoperability projects don’t always exist in the worst case. On the y-axis, the degree to which you need semantic interoperability. On the x-axis, the scale of the interoperability exposure. Concerning the graph, Charlie says:
The overarching motivation of the graphic and trajectory line: trying to figure out how to communicate a commitment to “making easy things easy” aka “linear value proposition” aka “just enough semantics, just enough security, just enough specification, etc. etc., etc.” Note that “making easy things easy” does «not» mean that “hard things become easy.” They’re still hard..
I want to know how this applies to HL7. There’s certainly a widespread view that we’ve made the easy things hard. Where do we need explicit semantic interoperability in the instance, where do need it implicit in the instance (i.e. it’s in the definitions), and where is it just completely spurious?
I’m not going to propose an answer right here and now, other than to note that in a single exchange, different parts of the content probably have different answers. But I think this is a very pertinent with regard to the issues in front of the HL7 Fresh Look Taskforce.