"General interfacing" must to be evaluated by cost and performance of
specific interface implementations. Somehow and somewhere, the general
interface must be customized to fit specific use-case requirements.
Is it possible that previous interfacing efforts have failed because
they have tried to be too general?
I'm not sure what you mean by "general interfacing" vs "specific interface implementations".
XML-RPC is about as general as it gets with no structure except that imposed by the XML.
What is it that has "failed" with other interfacing efforts? I assume you may mean
"failure to be adopted"? Sometimes the fault has nothing to do with the technology but
with other market factors. HL7's primary problem, in my mind, is its lack of sufficient constraints,
so that each implementor isn't constrained to interoperability. It doesn't require, for example,
full electronic "discovery" of the metadata. One is required to read the implementation
manual. This has little to do with its technical success as it is used in most hospital
systems in the US that have electronic data.
OMG's HDTF "failure" has been, in my opinion, its failure to be adopted (or promoted)
by the large vendors. It is a technical success in terms of CORBA's wide use in the industry.
Adopting XML-RPC is not going to lead to wide adoption, also in my opinion.
Dave
Best regards,
Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
