Difference between revisions of "XCA-I FT Evaluation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | '''XCA-I''' - [[Cross-Community_Access_for_Imaging]] has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop) | |
Per the [[Final Text Process]], <font color="blue">Items in blue text</font> below warrant Committee discussion. | Per the [[Final Text Process]], <font color="blue">Items in blue text</font> below warrant Committee discussion. | ||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:::There may be implementation gaps but there is no reason to suspect issues with the specification. | :::There may be implementation gaps but there is no reason to suspect issues with the specification. | ||
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed? | * Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed? | ||
− | :: Yes. No other issues than | + | :: Yes. No other issues than listed above |
* Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed? | * Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed? | ||
− | :: One open issue will be closed | + | :: One open issue will be closed |
+ | 1. Can a non-DICOM-wrapped JPEG be transferred “WADO-like” through a proxy? (Cross-Gateway Imaging Document Set Retrieve) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Response: No. Currently out-of-scope for the current profile. | ||
+ | |||
===TC Conclusion=== | ===TC Conclusion=== | ||
− | : Technical Committee | + | : Technical Committee recommends promotion to Final Text |
==PC Checklist== | ==PC Checklist== | ||
Line 43: | Line 47: | ||
:: Yes. NA (2012, 2013) EU (2012, 2013) | :: Yes. NA (2012, 2013) EU (2012, 2013) | ||
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested? | * Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested? | ||
− | :: Yes. ( | + | :: Yes. (each actor has been implemented by at least 7 vendors) |
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon? | * Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon? | ||
− | :: | + | :: Async is the only option. It has not been extensively tested. See discussion above |
* 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? | ||
− | :: | + | :: Not completely. See discussion above |
* 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. (ITI XCA, XDS-I.b, | + | :: Yes. (ITI XCA, XDS, XDS-I.b, DICOM WADO-WS) |
* (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?) | * (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. 6 Products listed in Product Registry. | + | :: Yes - XCA appears to have been used in an NHIN pilot between VA and Kaiser. No information on XCA-I. |
+ | :: 6 Products listed in Product Registry. | ||
* 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? | ||
− | :: | + | :: See response above. |
* 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]] | ||
− | :: | + | :: [[Cross-Community_Access_for_Imaging]] |
===PC Conclusion=== | ===PC Conclusion=== | ||
+ | There is some concern over our inability to identify any real-world deployment of XCA-I. However, the underlying standards are proven in the real world and we are assuming that the image-related components are not a significant difference. | ||
+ | |||
+ | PC unanimously approves for final text pending resolution of CP 223. |
Latest revision as of 12:18, 29 May 2013
XCA-I - Cross-Community_Access_for_Imaging 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"?
- Yes. Open CPs:
- 223 - Consistent SOAP definitions for XCA-I transactions.
- This CP will be pre-requisite for final text. Will go out in the 2013 ballot pack.
- 234 - erroneously claims to add CDA option to XCA-I. This will not be done.
- 223 - Consistent SOAP definitions for XCA-I transactions.
- Yes. Open CPs:
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- Yes
- ITI 650 OASIS/ebXML Registry Information Model constraint or IHE ITI TF Example change
- Yes
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Yes.
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Limited number of Initiating Gateways supporting Async. Async option has been lightly tested as Connectathon. We are depending upon vendor testing.
- Async is not the primary mode of operation. Vendors who have tested, do have experince testing async capabilities in other profiles.
- No tooling specific for XCA-I or XDS-I.b. Tools do exist for XDS.b and XCA.
- T&T intends to deliver XDS-I.b tools in 2013.
- Interoperability testing of XDS-I.b and XCA-I has been preformed in terms of successful transfer/display. However it is possible/likely these implementations may not fully comply with the technical framework specification (why tooling is needed)
- There may be implementation gaps but there is no reason to suspect issues with the specification.
- Limited number of Initiating Gateways supporting Async. Async option has been lightly tested as Connectathon. We are depending upon vendor testing.
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- Yes. No other issues than listed above
- Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
- One open issue will be closed
1. Can a non-DICOM-wrapped JPEG be transferred “WADO-like” through a proxy? (Cross-Gateway Imaging Document Set Retrieve)
Response: No. Currently out-of-scope for the current profile.
TC Conclusion
- Technical Committee recommends promotion to Final Text
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. NA (2012, 2013) EU (2012, 2013)
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes. NA (2012, 2013) EU (2012, 2013)
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes. (each actor has been implemented by at least 7 vendors)
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Async is the only option. It has not been extensively tested. See discussion above
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- Not completely. See discussion above
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes. (ITI XCA, XDS, XDS-I.b, DICOM WADO-WS)
- (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 - XCA appears to have been used in an NHIN pilot between VA and Kaiser. No information on XCA-I.
- 6 Products listed in Product Registry.
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- See response above.
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
PC Conclusion
There is some concern over our inability to identify any real-world deployment of XCA-I. However, the underlying standards are proven in the real world and we are assuming that the image-related components are not a significant difference.
PC unanimously approves for final text pending resolution of CP 223.