Questions about FHIR
Jun 27, 2012I have been keenly following your writings on HL7 for the past few years. I think that FHIR is a great idea and am keen on taking this forward in XXX. Two questions: (1)Where can I get an implementer focused document on FHIR? (I know that it is a work in progress, but I am fine with that) (2) What is HL7 International’s take on the FHIR? (Frankly speaking, though I like the way FHIR is forming up, I am concerned about taking up an idea that may not get HL7 International’s approval).
Thank you for asking.
(1) Implementer focused documentation
I think that FHIR itself is a very implementer focused document - that’s what we’re trying for, tough we’re always fighting a losing battle with complexity, of course. But anything we write about implementation, I’d like to add to the specification itself, if possible. What have you got in mind that we haven’t got?
One thing that early drafts contained, but don’t seem to have a place right now, is an explanation of how to use REST to implement solutions. The trouble with that seemed to be that we can’t get enough detail into the specification to make experienced REST practitioners happy without making newbies scared.
Otherwise - very keen to hear suggestions for what else we can provide to make implementing the specification easier
(2) FHIR reception at HL7 International
The reception for FHIR at HL7 international has been almost uniformly positive. The biggest single evidence of this is that the board agreed to make FHIR freely available to the public. This is a big deal. Certainly there’s some very reasonable nervousness about the overall impact of FHIR on the existing specifications and the organisation’s ongoing ability to support them. And there’s a few members who are very highly invested in the existing standards of one form or another who would much rather not see FHIR succeed. But the needs that it addresses are very real, and HL7 international is very aware of them.
Having said that, FHIR goes up for it’s first ballot in the next few weeks. If you like what FHIR represents, join the ballot and vote for it. There’s 2500+ voting members at HL7, and generally <40 people vote on the specification. that’s 2% - a very small sample size. it’s very easy to flood the ballot. I’d rather see it get flooded in approval than opposition ;-)
I’ve always been concerned that FHIR represents too much change - a sea-change in direction. I know many other people share that concern - after all, our last big direction change (v2 -> v3) didn’t turn out too well in the end. But I’ve come to the conclusion that only a big change can solve the problems - I’ve spent 5 years working to improve the situation within the paradigm that is v3, and all I’ve managed to do is make it more confusing.