Difference between revisions of "IOCM FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (moved Proposal of IOCM to Final Text to IOCM FT Evaluation: Match past titles)
Line 1: Line 1:
Run down the following checklist for each profile:
+
[[Imaging Object Change Management]] has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Kinson Ho)
  
Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
+
Per the [[Final Text Process]], <font color="blue">Items in blue text</font> below warrant Committee discussion.
[Kinson] CP-242 is currently in ballot.
 
  
Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
+
==TC Checklist==
[Kinson] No pending CPs for underlying standards
 
  
Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
+
* Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
[Kinson] Yes.
+
:: Mostly. <font color="blue">Open CPs</font>:
 +
::: CP-241 - Clarify how to handle retention policy expiry with XDS-I manifest deletion
 +
::: CP-283 - Clarify object referencing in Rejection Note
 +
::: CP-296 - Clarify usage of Modalities in Study in IOCM
  
Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
+
* Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
[Kinson] Yes.
+
:: [Kinson] No pending CPs for underlying standards
  
Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
+
* Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?  
[Kinson] Yes. All issues have been identified during or after Connecthaton have corresponding CPs created. Some of them have already been balloted and ready for final text. Some of them are still pending reviews before ready for ballot.
+
:: [Kinson] Yes.
  
Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
+
*Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
[Kinson] ??
+
:: [Kinson] Yes.
  
Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
+
* Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?  
[Kinson] Connectathon test results for IOCM is available [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Radiology/RAD_Connectathon_Results_Summaries/ here].
+
:: [Kinson] Yes. All issues have been identified during or after Connecthaton have corresponding CPs created. Some of them have already been balloted and ready for final text. Some of them are still pending reviews before ready for ballot.
  
Debate checklist exceptions (failure of any of the above is cause for discussion)
+
* Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
Record checklist findings and debate conclusion
+
:: [Kinson] <font color="blue">??</font>
 +
 
 +
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
 +
:: [Kinson] Connectathon test results for IOCM is available [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Radiology/RAD_Connectathon_Results_Summaries/ here].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===TC Conclusion===
 +
??vote to recommend for FT to Planning Cmte.??
 +
 
 +
==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 (2009, 2010, 2011) NA (2009, 2010, 2011)???
 +
* Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
 +
:: ???Yes. EU 2009. (NA 2011 mostly)???
 +
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
 +
:: ???Yes. (22 vendors have tested various actors)
 +
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
 +
:: ???
 +
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
 +
:: <font color="blue"> (Check with Lynn) </font>
 +
* Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
 +
::
 +
* (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?)
 +
::
 +
* Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
 +
::
 +
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
 +
:: Yes. [[Imaging Object Change Management]]
 +
 
 +
===PC Conclusion===

Revision as of 20:09, 23 April 2014

Imaging Object Change Management has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Kinson Ho)

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:
CP-241 - Clarify how to handle retention policy expiry with XDS-I manifest deletion
CP-283 - Clarify object referencing in Rejection Note
CP-296 - Clarify usage of Modalities in Study in IOCM
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
[Kinson] No pending CPs for underlying standards
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
[Kinson] Yes.
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
[Kinson] Yes.
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
[Kinson] Yes. All issues have been identified during or after Connecthaton have corresponding CPs created. Some of them have already been balloted and ready for final text. Some of them are still pending reviews before ready for ballot.
  • Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
[Kinson] ??
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
[Kinson] Connectathon test results for IOCM is available here.


TC Conclusion

??vote to recommend for FT to Planning Cmte.??

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 (2009, 2010, 2011) NA (2009, 2010, 2011)???
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
???Yes. EU 2009. (NA 2011 mostly)???
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
???Yes. (22 vendors have tested various actors)
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
???
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
(Check with Lynn)
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
  • (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?)
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
Yes. Imaging Object Change Management

PC Conclusion