Difference between revisions of "IOCM FT Evaluation"
|Line 31:||Line 31:|
Revision as of 13:03, 24 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.
- 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
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- 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] Annecdotal feedback from Lynn and David are that the implementations had no particular technical issues (aside from needing to use the Content Tree for references which has a CP). Some Image Display implementations were a little hokey with KIN in general. But a number of the implementations were well thought out and mature. The scenarios of supressing/exposing, etc. worked well.
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- [Kinson] Yes. No issues. Connectathon test results for IOCM is available here.
Since the hub of IOCM has been getting tested, but there appears to be no interest in the "peripheral" actors, Tech Cmte proposes that a CP be written to reduce the scope of IOCM. Cut out the untested actors (and the associated interactions with PDI, SWF, etc).
Kinson will submit such a CP. Upon review of the CP, the Tech Cmte will consider proposing the result to Final Text.
- 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?
- No. EU (2014, 2013, 2012)
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- No. Many (peripheral) actors have never been tested.
- Only Image Manager and Change Requester have been passed in more than one region.
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- No options.
- 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?
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile