Rad Plan Future Agenda Topics

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feel free to add proposed agenda items here.

Urgent: For Next Meeting

Try to indicate why it's urgent

  • Review TCE Profile for Final Text
    • Tech Cmte has submitted it for Plan Cmte Review
    • TC needs a prompt answer; if positive, need to wrap it into the Tech Framework by June.
  • PDI Deployment into non-PACS environments
    • Use of Web Option
    • Education on pre-loading of Images

Near Term: For Upcoming Meeting

  • XDS-I and XDS.b
    • Decide on a workitem for Rad Tech to "port" or otherwise address XDS.b in XDS-I
    • Consider if/ when (and how) to update XDS-I to leverage "XDS.b technology".
    • This question was raised in the past (shortly after the TI publication of XDS.b by ITI), and at the time the Committee's position was: "let's wait and see how stable the XDS.b specification is before doing anything."
    • The following feedback was solicited and recently received from Lynn Felhofer (IHE Project Manager - MIR) on the question of XDS.b stability:
      • "We had widespread adoption of XDS.b at Chicago (17 Consumers, 5 Registries, 7 Repositories, 14 Sources); also for Oxford (13 Consumers, 14 Registries, 17 Repositories, 12 Sources)."
        "In Chicago, the vast majority of systems tested successfully. The biggest struggle we had in the fall was that the NIST tools were being developed in parallel with vendors doing their implementation. This is because ITI finishes their specs in Aug, leaving no time for advanced tool development. So, all of the implementors learned together, and Bill released updates to the toolkit as vendors found problems. If you subscribe to the XDS implementors google group, you witnessed this churn. That has largely subsided now, and I think the tools are pretty stable."
        "The other caveat is that we really just tested the 'simple case' for XDS.b this year (doc submit/retrieve). Features like Folder Management, and Document Lifecycle (append, replace) aren't tested in the tools and were made optional connectathon tests for this year. Next year they will be required."
        "Overall, XDS.b testing went better than I anticipated it would when the profile was finished back in August. My personal opinion would be the profile is solid enough to consider it as a base for XDS-I. This fall's experience did result in several CPs against XDS.b; the TF documentation will remain a bit of a challenge for implementors to assimilate until those CPs are incorporated into the profile. Steve and I tried to address the documentation problem a bit by compiling a page that points to all of the pieces of documentation needed for XDS.b (and other profiles):"
    • http://ihewiki.wustl.edu/wiki/index.php/Summary_Of_IHE_Technical_Requirements

"Parking Lot": For Someday

Review these from time to time for activation

  • NEMA DICOM Library
    • Vendors who create objects have not been populating the library
    • One reason may be lack of a carrot
    • IHE has played with the idea of making Products (vs Prototypes) a more prominant part of Connectathon
    • Combining these, perhaps vendors could sign up to do Product Testing vs Prototype Testing (similar to the current supportive vs comprehensive)
    • One requirement for passing the Product level could be to post objects to the NEMA Library