Invoke Image Display Evaluation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Proposal== | ==Proposal== | ||
The Invoke Image Display profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Andrei Leontiev) | The Invoke Image Display profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Andrei Leontiev) | ||
== Technical Committee Checklist == | == Technical Committee Checklist == | ||
| Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
== Technical Committee Consensus== | == Technical Committee Consensus== | ||
:* | :* The RAD Tech Committee recommends promoting IID to Final Text | ||
== Planning Committee Checklist == | == Planning Committee Checklist == | ||
| Line 33: | Line 32: | ||
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon? | * Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon? | ||
:*Profile does not define any options | :*Profile does not define any options | ||
* 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. However, the profile has been implemented in the field by variety of vendors and proved operational. | :* No. However, the profile has been implemented in the field by variety of vendors and proved operational. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:19, 3 April 2025
Proposal
The Invoke Image Display profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Andrei Leontiev)
Technical Committee Checklist
- Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
- Yes. CP-349 has been cancelled and CP-364 is Final Text
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- There are no IID related CPs in DICOM
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Yes
- Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
- Yes
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Yes
- Feedback from implementers
- The feedback from implementers was captured in the above-mentioned CPs and resolved.
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- Yes
Technical Committee Consensus
- The RAD Tech Committee recommends promoting IID to Final Text
Planning Committee Checklist
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Profile does not define any options
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- No. However, the profile has been implemented in the field by variety of vendors and proved operational.
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes, similar mechanisms using the HTTP-GET requests are currently used in actual implementations.
- (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?)
- The difference between Real World implementations from the definitions of the profile are only in the names of parameters, however, the existing implementations always provide mechanisms for user authentication that are NOT well addressed by the profile (see CP 364). This may be a significant impediment to actual implementation of the profile as written.
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- No
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile