Difference between revisions of "XDS-I.b FT Evaluation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
:: Yes. (No options defined) | :: Yes. (No options defined) | ||
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile? | * Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile? | ||
| − | :: | + | :: No, no tools to validate content objects or radiology-specific transactions. NIST tools are used to validate XDS transactions. |
* Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT? | * Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT? | ||
:: Yes. | :: Yes. | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:: Yes. Significant community interest. | :: Yes. Significant community interest. | ||
* Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved? | * Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved? | ||
| − | :: | + | :: Open question about new capabilities to handle multi-modality procedures and association to respective reports |
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]] | * Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]] | ||
:: Yes. | :: Yes. | ||
===PC Conclusion=== | ===PC Conclusion=== | ||
Revision as of 12:55, 12 July 2011
Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing of Images has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop)
Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.
TC Checklist
- Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- 187 - Clarify RAD-69 Response Expected Action for JPIP transfer syntaxes
- 216 - Resolve RetrieveImagingDocumentSet Action Inconsistency between TF and WSDL
- 220 - Secure Transfer of JPEGs in XDS-I.b
- 187 & 220 are feature additions and not issues with the profile.
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- Yes.
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Yes.
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Yes.
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- Yes. No issues
TC Conclusion
PC Checklist
- Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
- Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
- It's helpful to assign an advocate for the supplement at this time to check/prepare the evidence for the upcoming checklist rather than go hunting for it during the meeting
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes. EU (2010, 2011) NA (2010, 2011)
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes. EU (2011) NA (2011)
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes.
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes. (No options defined)
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- No, no tools to validate content objects or radiology-specific transactions. NIST tools are used to validate XDS transactions.
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes.
- (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
- Yes. Significant community interest.
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- Open question about new capabilities to handle multi-modality procedures and association to respective reports
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes.