Difference between revisions of "ITI Tech Audit Msg Specification New Approach"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(The problem)
(IHE Tools for audit message documentation & validation)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
** To validate, see menu ''IHE-->Audit messages-->Validate''
 
** To validate, see menu ''IHE-->Audit messages-->Validate''
 
** To see results, see menu ''IHE-->Audit messages-->Validation logs''
 
** To see results, see menu ''IHE-->Audit messages-->Validation logs''
* Gazelle Security Suite
+
* Gazelle Security Suite - aka GSS
 
** Link to tool: https://gazelle.ihe.net/gss/home.seam
 
** Link to tool: https://gazelle.ihe.net/gss/home.seam
 
** Link to documentation on audit messages checked by the tool:  menu '' Audit Trail --> Audit message documentation''
 
** Link to documentation on audit messages checked by the tool:  menu '' Audit Trail --> Audit message documentation''
 
** Example audit message documentation for ITI-41 Doc Source audit message:  https://gazelle.ihe.net/gss/amview/auditMessage.seam?id=17
 
** Example audit message documentation for ITI-41 Doc Source audit message:  https://gazelle.ihe.net/gss/amview/auditMessage.seam?id=17
 +
 +
== Enhancements needed to the tools ==
 +
 +
* With the exception of some codes, the audit message documentation in GSS currently does not contain the contents of the "Value Constraints" column in the audit message tables in the TF.  This needs to be added.
 +
* Need a GUI to enable a TF editor or ITI Tech Cmte member to create a new audit message definition in the tool
 +
* Add an example for each audit message.  (It is currently possible to look through the database of verified audit messages for examples.)
 +
 +
== Administrative and Governance issues to address ==
 +
 +
* Figure out how the CP process (to fix TF documentation) and the Jira process (to fix the tools) work together
 +
** Determine how implementers know that a message definition has been fixed in the tool

Revision as of 18:50, 13 February 2017

ITI Technical Committee - Exploring a new approach to Audit Message Specification in the TF

During the Feb 2017 F2F Meeting in Naples, Italy, the ITI Technical Committee began exploring alternatives to specifying audit message requirements. This wiki page is a working document in order to make progress toward an improved specification

This page is not owned/maintained by one person. Feel free to make edits and share your ideas.

The problem

  • The current practice in the ITI TF is to specify audit message requirements in the Security Considerations section at the end of every transaction in Volume 2a, 2b, 2c. The tables are based on the General Message Format in DICOM PS3.15 Section A.5.2.
  • For new transactions, ITI does not have documented guidance for profile authors on how to fill out each field in an audit message/
  • The ITI TF does not have a template for the IHE conventions for specifying audit messages (use of fonts, etc)
  • Thus, for a new transaction, a common practice is for the author to copy an audit message specification for an existing transaction and then make edits. Authors have varying expertise in this area, and the original table may have had errors. This results in many errors that cascade into many, many CPs to fix audit message specifications.
  • Errors in the TF are then encoded into the Gazelle Security Suite and Gazelle EVS Client test tools that do audit message checks based on the TF requirements.

Opportunities

IHE Tools for audit message documentation & validation

Enhancements needed to the tools

  • With the exception of some codes, the audit message documentation in GSS currently does not contain the contents of the "Value Constraints" column in the audit message tables in the TF. This needs to be added.
  • Need a GUI to enable a TF editor or ITI Tech Cmte member to create a new audit message definition in the tool
  • Add an example for each audit message. (It is currently possible to look through the database of verified audit messages for examples.)

Administrative and Governance issues to address

  • Figure out how the CP process (to fix TF documentation) and the Jira process (to fix the tools) work together
    • Determine how implementers know that a message definition has been fixed in the tool