recently I've implemented MFN M15 message sender using HL7 (v2.x).
I see that HAPI FHIR is emerging as de-facto standard. Can someone point me out what would be MFN M15 message counterpart in https://hapifhir.io/?
NOTE:
I've already downloaded ca.uhn.hapi.fhir:org.hl7.fhir.dstu3:4.2.10-SNAPSHOT, and start investigation in org.hl7.fhir.dstu3.model but some directions would be more than gratefull.
Work on managing inventory using FHIR is still an area of exploration in FHIR (definitely a long way from 'de-facto standard' in this space, though FHIR is certainly becoming that for some areas of healthcare. In DSTU3, you may be able to cobble together part of a solution using Device and Medication. You might also look at this stream on chat.fhir.org: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179165-committers/topic/inventory.20tracking
Related
I'm looking for a way to write notes into patient chart in Epic. Couldn't find any current FHIR specs about writing notes , but I didn't find this proposal http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ClinicalNote_FHIR_Resource_Proposal
Are there any other options ?
Great question. I work on the FHIR team at Epic and from a FHIR perspective we are having a similar problem identifying the appropriate place in FHIR to return notes. The proposal you have linked is a starting artifact in defining a new resource for that purpose. Until we determine in the FHIR community if a new spec should be created or an existing FHIR resource should be used, we do not have a FHIR specification to develop support against.
Outside of FHIR, today there are multiple ways to get notes into Epic such as HL7 v2, document based exchange, or something more Epic defined (these are just the ones I'm aware of). Without knowing more about your use case, it is hard to say what option may or may not meet your needs. I recommend you reach out through the contact us at https://open.epic.com/. From this email group they can dive into what integrations would meet your specific scenario and you will have input from a full gamut of integration experts.
And if you are interested in the standards side of things and getting notes in the FHIR specification, I'd encourage you to get involved on chat.fhir.org or any of the HL7 FHIR meetings to provide input on the specification!
*Edited to point to website instead of email.
Recently I have been looking into the development of social networks and I often find references to pump.io. There is however very limited information available on what pump.io actually is. The official website says nothing more than: "It's a stream server that does most of what people really want from a social network." I found some more information on this website (http://slid.es/evanp/understanding-pumpio/fullscreen#/) but that still doesn't say a lot to me.
Could someone please provide an elaborate discussion on what pump.io actually is (and does) to someone who does not know anything about (activity) stream servers? Maybe the better question is: "What is an activity stream server?"
Yeah, the term is one a lot of people are unfamiliar with and it makes a couple of distinctions that aren't immediately obvious even if you use and post to a pump.io site.
pump.io, as it is distributed, is really two programs with different sets of functions. One is the Activity Stream Server and the other is the Web Client.
At the risk of being pedantic, let me define each of the words. I know you know what the words mean, but I hope the specific contexts/usage will help:
Server: a program which distributes information (usually) across a
network.
Stream: a (usually) chronological series of some sorts of pieces of information.
Activity: a description or depiction of something someone is doing.
The Activity Stream Server is a program which distributes (server) a chronological series (stream) of posts about stuff people do (activities).
The distinction is important because the website part of a pump.io website is a client for the pump server—essentially no different from a desktop or smartphone pump.io client. It listens to the pump's stream of posts and sends new posts to the pump using the same API and data formats that standalone applications—or other pumps—do.
You could actually totally decouple the Web Client and have a fully-functioning pump.io instance without any website. Users on other pump sites could see your posts and you could see theirs, and you could comment back and forth. It would make no difference.
ActivityStream is a JSON-based data format to describe "activities". The specification of ActivityStream 2.0 can be found at https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/ and the vocabulary of activities at https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/. To get the feeling of how the data format looks like you can have a look at the few examples at https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#examples. More examples can be found throughout the two specifications.
pump.io is an activity stream server that does most of what people
really want a social network server to do.
That's a pretty packed sentence, I understand, but I can try to unwind
it a little.
"Activities" are the things we do in our on-line or off-line
life—waking up in the morning, going for a run, tasting a beer,
uploading a photo, adding a friend, eating a burrito, joining a group,
liking a blog post.
pump.io uses a simple JSON format to represent all these kinds of
activities and many more. It organizes activities into streams—time
ordered lists of activities, with the newest first. Most streams are
organized by theme, like: all the things that my friends did, or all
the things that I did, or all the things anyone has done to this
picture.
Programmers use a simple API to connect to a pump.io server and add
new activities. pump.io automatically organizes the activities into
streams and makes sure the activities get to the people who are
interested in them.
And, really, that's what we want from a social network
Behrenshausen, B. (2013). 'Interview with Evan Prodromou, lead developer of pump.io'. Retrieved from: https://opensource.com/life/13/7/pump-io
If you peer a few centimeters down the page on the official website, you'll see:
What's it for? I post something and my followers see it. That's the
rough idea behind the pump.
There's an API defined in the API.md file. It uses activitystrea.ms
JSON as the main data and command format.
You can post almost anything that can be represented with activity
streams -- short or long text, bookmarks, images, video, audio,
events, geo checkins. You can follow friends, create lists of people,
and so on.
The software is useful for at least these scenarios:
Mobile-first social networking
Activity stream functionality for an existing app
Experimenting with social software
Those last 3 items hopefully answer your question.
Currently, you can:
install the nodejs-based pump.io server
(or) sign up for an account on a public service
post notes and pictures with configurable permissions
log in to web and client applications using your webfinger ID
before I start I realise there are a few SNMP related questions here already but not many seem to have been answered - that could mean I'm asking in the wrong place but I don't know where else to go at the moment.
I've been reading up as best I can on SNMP for a couple of days but am finding it difficult to get my head around what is meant to be happening. The idea is eventually we will integrate SNMP into our Java application server which will allow the end users to incorporate it into their pre-existing Network Management Systems(NMS).
Unfortunately I'm feeling entirely confused by what is meant to be going on. From what I understood from talking to the end users (which was unfortunately before any research) was that the monitoring allows their existing NMS to give their admin guys a view of the vital statistics in a tree type display, giving them feedback regarding different parts of the system at a high level and allowing them to dig down into specific subsystems.
From reading around we would implement an 'Agent' which has several defined interfaces allowing for GET requests etc to be processed and responded to. That makes sense but I am at a loss to work out what the format of the communication is - there don't seem to be any specific examples of what any of the messages look like, how the information is encoded.
More of my confusion though is regarding Management Information Base(MIB). I had, wrongly, assumed that the interface of the agent would allow for the monitored attributes to be requested and then in turn the values for those attributes requested. Allowing any new Agent to be started and detected without any configuration on the NMS end (with the exception of authentication in v3). This, if I understand correctly, is not the case and the Agent must instead define MIBs which can be used by the NMS to determine those attributes. My confusion is increased when people start referring to thousands of existing MIBs and that they can be reused which I don't understand. Is the intention that a single MIB definition can be used to say describe how a particular attribute of a network device (something simple like internet connected on a router:yes/no) for many different devices? If so I don't believe that our software would allow the monitoring of anything common to any other device/system but should we be looking for already exising MIBs? At the moment I don't really see any good rational for such a system, surely it would be easier for the Agent to export that information - so I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me!
I think it would help if I was able to setup a simple SNMP agent and some sort of client, I could begin to see the process and eventually inspect the communication between the two but am finding it difficult to find anywhere that provides any information on doing such a thing. Nagios has been recommended to us as a test 'client'/NMS but their 'get started quick' section recommends downloading a 600Mb virtual machine - surely there is a quicker way to get started?
Any help or suggestions will be appreciated, I have been through the Wiki page but it doesn't seem to go into much detail about the MIBs and the having not had to deal with anything like the referenced RFCs before, while they may contain all of the information they seem completely impenetrable to me at the moment. Or if there are any books that can be recommended for an overview and implementation of v3?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks if you think you can help!
It seems to me that you read all SNMP information piece by piece in an disorganized way. This is highly not recommended and of course lead you to confusion.
What about forgetting what you have learnt so far and dive into a good book such as Essential SNMP?
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596008406.do
Click the Google Preview icon to preview it please.
You could not depend on a network forum to tell you the ABCs, as that's impractical I find out.
The communications interface is SNMP. That's the protocol used for transmission (usually on top of UDP). The thing that services information requests is an SNMP Agent. The thing that sends information requests is an SNMP Manager.
The definition of what information should be made available by the Agent, and requested by the Manager, goes in a MIB. A MIB is the "glue", a directory of what sort of things any particular system can/should offer. It maps numeric codes to names and types that allow us to make sense of the data, much like how a phone directory maps phone numbers to people's names and addresses.
Generally you would create and ship and use your own MIBs that can describe aspects specific to your own product, but you are supposed to service some standard information requests as well, which are defined in existing MIBs. Yes there are thousands of other pre-existing MIBs and the likelihood that you need more than one or two of these is remote. They are typically published versions of MIBs for existing products.
The conventional way to "toy around" is to install Net-SNMP (a software suite that includes an agent implementation and allows you to "bolt on" your own logic and your own MIBs fairly easily) then examine the results using a packet capturer like Wireshark.
For a fuller implementation in production you may stick with Net-SNMP, or write your own Agent software, or do what I did and create a hybrid of the two that's a little more flexible and performant but uses Net-SNMP's backend for handling all the low-level SNMP stuff.
Your first step, though, is to read a book or some other teaching material that can clear all your misconceptions, because guesswork won't cut it.
I had success using the samples from this page. Both the shell and Perl NetSNMP code was very straightforward to implement and query.
I was browsing for an open source messaging software and after some good bit of research I came across these three products. I've taken these out for a preliminary test drive, having had them handle messages for queues and topics, and from what I've read all three of these products are good picks for an Open Source messaging solution for most companies. What I was wondering was what are the advantages that these products may have over one another? What I'm particularly interested in is messaging throughput, including persistent messaging throughput, security, scalability, reliability, support, routing capabilities, administrative options such as metrics and monitoring, and generally just how well each program runs in a large business environment.
Check out http://queues.io/
From their site:
The goal is to create a quality list of queues with a collection of articles, blog posts, slides, and videos about them. After reading the linked articles, you should have a good idea about: the pros and cons of each queue, a basic understanding of how the queue works, and what each queue is trying to achieve. Basically, you should have all the information you need to decide which queue will best fit your needs.
'messaging' covers a lot of options - and there must be at least a dozen different types of technologies that could be the right answer - having built many production messaging environments, using a variety of technologies/approaches, having a better understanding your requirements would help.
are you needing subject-based subscriptions? do you need multicast delivery? do you need dynamic subscribers/listeners? would your listeners be requerying for best sources even after finding an acceptable publisher/feed?
do you need guaranteed delivery? delivery confirmation? is you publisher storing any undelivered messages, or do you need the messaging system to do that for you automagically? how often does your feed data go stale - e.g. email-ish alerts can be store-and-forward but real-time pricing data is only valid for a short interval (and then probably needs to go away rather than cause confusion)
how volatile is your network topology? are your subscribers (or publishers) expecting to live at a fixed address? or are they mobile devices? could they appear to you over more complex internetwork topologies requiring registration and possibly imposing routing restrictions? if so any idea the frequency of these topology changes?
do you only need a java interface? are any of your subscribers to be integrated into windows components (like feeds into excel)?
if you're only interested in experience comparing the similar products you named then perhaps you have already thought through these topics.
as to products, in my experience Tibco is still the leader in throughput and scalability, especially in a real-time environment. ibm MQ would be next, especially in a store-and-forward architecture. with both of those products you get a level of support on which you can justify betting a fundamental part of your business systems. there's a reason both of those have been around for a couple of decades.
another often overlooked option is Tuxedo - it provides not only messaging but a proven transactional capability that remains unparalleled. Oracle continue to be committed to this product and, again, the level of support available is second to none.
i love open sourced solutions and am always glad to find production quality software for free - but if you are creating a fundamental part of your business infrastructure then an active community still might not indicate whether a particular voluntary project is the best bet.
my 2c worth. hope it helps.
First, I am no expert in this, but maybe I can give you some thought hints.
ActiveMQ and Qpid are both under the Apache umbrella and are message queues. But Qpid is an implementation of the AMQP specification.
AMQP is a protocol specification, on the wire level, so messages can be exchanged with other AMQP message queues (e.g RabbitMQ).
ActiveMQ and HornetQ are queues that you can use with a JMS API. The Java Message Service is a specification on an API level.
But you have the option to access Qpid via a JMS API, too.
I think performance is a secondary thought. To have an active community is more important.
http://x-aeon.com/wp/2013/04/10/a-quick-message-queue-benchmark-activemq-rabbitmq-hornetq-qpid-apollo/
Benchmark includes some performance numbers for you to decide, with both persistent and transient results.
So far I have seen non-Java client support only for open source message brokers like Apache ActiveMQ, JBoss HornetQ and Open Message Queue (OpenMQ).
Are there also closed-source products like WebSphere, WebLogic or Tibco which offer non-Java access to their MOM brokers, using a documented wire protocol (opposite to a closed-source binary client library) which allows to write clients in other languages?
This is getting more interesting as products (like WebLogic) are available in the (EC2) cloud so that developers can use the cloud instance to develop and test a client application without the need to purchase and install the full version.
I don't have a definitive answer because I specialize in WMQ exclusively. However, I believe the answer is "no" for the most part. (More on that in a minute.)
Regarding WMQ IBM makes available exit points to tailor the behavior of the channels, API calls and authorizations. Exits are very well documented and perform narrow functions within the scope of a particular action - i.e. receive a message, initiate a connection, etc. These are written in C and, more recently, Java. For the most part these are unused and customers I talk to generally cite complexity. They want something customizable through configuration and not through low-level code. I suspect other MOM vendors experience similar requirements from customers.
What does this have to do with your question? My take on this is that if customers are reluctant to code up exits with limited function, it seems far fetched that they would code up a full-featured and robust client that supports reliable message delivery, one- and two-phase commit, client-side exits, diagnostics, and all the other functionality that WMQ channels provide.
Assuming that this task was undertaken by an open-source team capable of that level of code, who would support it? the MOM vendors currently provide end-to-end support when using their proprietary clients. The notion of how a trouble ticket might be resolved when using a third-party client that is community-supported is a bit scary to many customer. For example, IBM supplies add-ons for WMQ called SupportPacs. Although there are SupportPacs that are fully supported and are considered product extensions, some of the SupportPacs are provided as-is. Many of my customers won't run as-is code even when it is supplied by the vendor.
Finally, there is the notion of the interface contract. WMQ supports a few verbs with a lot of options. The underlying channel protocol is MUCH more complex. When WMQ v7 came out, the channels had considerable new functionality and tuning. this was possible at this scale because the internals are not exposed to clients and so IBM was able to make massive changes without fear of negative impact to 3rd party clients. Exposing all of that would create dependencies on an order or two higher magnitude than exist with just the API's exposed.
So, according to my theory (I don't pretend to speak for the MQ development team here) the big MOM vendors have a vested interest in not exposing their channel protocols to independent developers. The new wrinkle here is AMQP which I alluded to above. It defines the wire protocol and allows each vendor to code a compliant product. Although this provides the opportunity you describe for open-source solutions, the ability of any one implementation to improve the product is limited by the fact that they don't own the protocol. For the time being though I don't expect you'll find any of the big MOM vendors exposing their wire protocols for 3rd party development. That said, this is just a guess and if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here will jump in and provide the counter-example.