I was having a discussion with a colleague this week about architectural options for some specific interoperability use cases we are tackling.
The conversation touched on implementation choice – how much flexibility should there be in how to approach specific interoperability use cases within the NHS?
I’ve thought about this quite a bit, and struggled with the complexity that “many ways to do the same thing” can introduce. I naturally found myself quoting PEP 20 — The Zen of Python | Python.org.
There should be one — and preferably only one — obvious way to do it.
Could this be a reasonable principle for us to take with NHS interoperability?
I wonder if there is a place for “The Zen of NHS Interoperability” – to define some guiding principles for all of us working hard to make interoperability useful for the NHS.
Here is a slightly tongue-in-cheek attempt at a “Zen of NHS Interoperability” 🙂
The Zen of Interoperability
Elegant is better than messy. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Open is better than controlled. But controlled is better than proprietary. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you designed it. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than *right* now. If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Clear Standards are one honking great idea -- let's have more of those!