Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2020-02-08-12"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "=='''Monday, February 8, 2021: 8:15 - 5:00 pm Central Time (CT)'''== :[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IH...")
 
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
:08:15 - 08:30:  Welcome, [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vqD1zQ_S4f7N3cxrRQMrP4Bbb0CXWts9Y61hOOgvCKw/edit?usp=sharing Patent Disclosure Announcement], Agenda Review  
 
:08:15 - 08:30:  Welcome, [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vqD1zQ_S4f7N3cxrRQMrP4Bbb0CXWts9Y61hOOgvCKw/edit?usp=sharing Patent Disclosure Announcement], Agenda Review  
 
:S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (2)
 
:S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (2)
−
:S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (.5)
+
:*Reviewed and edited document.
 +
:S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (0 due to deferring to S3)
 +
:*Defer to S3
 
:S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (2)
 
:S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (2)
−
:S3: 13:45 – 15:45 Maintenance (2.5)
+
:*Brad is the keeper of the document. Committee members can make edits in their own document and send to Brad to consolidate into one document.
 +
:S3: 13:45 – 15:45 Maintenance (2.5)
 +
:*Reviewed and Assigned two submitted CPs:
 +
:**CP-RAD-459 SOLE: fix inconsistency of the audit event example
 +
:**CP-RAD-460 XCA-I Clarify IIG behavior in local community Reviewed and completed CP-RAD-456 - Enterprise Identity Option - Issuer of Other Patient ID
 +
:**Reviewed CP-RAD-453 - Clarify Implicit Post-processing Workflow
 
:S4: 16:00 - 17:00: Not TC Time. Available for Authoring Groups if needed
 
:S4: 16:00 - 17:00: Not TC Time. Available for Authoring Groups if needed
 +
:* Time not needed
 +
 +
=='''Tuesday, February 9, 2021: 8:45 am - 3:00 pm CT'''==
 +
:[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]
 +
:08:45 - 09:00:  Welcome, [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vqD1zQ_S4f7N3cxrRQMrP4Bbb0CXWts9Y61hOOgvCKw/edit?usp=sharing Patent Disclosure Announcement], Agenda Review
 +
:S1: 09:00 - 10:00am AI Whitepaper (3)
 +
:*Review of updates.
 +
:S1: 10:00 - 11:00am Maintenance (3.5)
 +
:*Introduction (Chris, Andrei, Wim)
 +
:**[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Orrr7RNJDSnomVI7pUFo6XbNTnjwtx3m/view?usp=sharing Engagement with development of AI WP] Brad Genereaux
 +
:***Solicit feedback on key parts of WP
 +
:***Profile development
 +
:**[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bZMidnGHaXJgrp_MhYk6HJwpyHfWiEC6JILoWGbAXyw/edit?usp=sharing Opportunity to test AIR, AIW and SOLE at the IHE European Connectathon]
 +
:**[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12a3uvlz5i13lJehO-aN9tVduROJ_1EBBDgPtvnHXWOk/edit?usp=sharing SOLE operational events for AI] Chris Lindop
 +
:**Planning for follow up IAIP demo at RSNA 2021
 +
:S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (5)
 +
:*Brad will upload most updated paper to Google Docs (version 0.5.3)
 +
:*Please label any updates with your name and use change tracking
 +
:*Brad will update the document with all changes
 +
:Meeting adjourned at 13:20.
 +
 +
=='''Wednesday, February 10, 2021: 8:15 am - 5:00 pm (CT)'''==
 +
 +
:[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]
 +
:08:15 - 08:30: Welcome, [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vqD1zQ_S4f7N3cxrRQMrP4Bbb0CXWts9Y61hOOgvCKw/edit?usp=sharing Patent Disclosure Announcement], Agenda Review
 +
:S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (4)
 +
:*Add to maintenance section: Split storage commitment change out of CAM and into a CP
 +
:S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (4)
 +
:*[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-RYc-DrpQyg7E0dA0Z1KSvX9q1EtAwbAh5f1o56xRk8/edit?usp=sharing February 2021 CP Ballot approved]
 +
:*Begin review of IOCM update to handle undelete
 +
:S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (7)
 +
:*Action for 2/11: Finish 3.1.9, read through blocks of 4 and content review of blocks 3.2 - 3.9; clinical use cases will require a bit of discussion
 +
:*Action: Brad will upload updated document on Google Drive
 +
:S3: 13:45 - 15:45: Maintenance (6)
 +
:*Review the IOCM update to handle undelete
 +
:*Split storage commitment change out of CAM and into a CP
 +
:*Review SOLE CP's on 2/11.
 +
:*Add additional hour on Friday 2/12 agenda (11am-12pm CT)
 +
: Meeting adjourned at 4pm.
 +
 +
=='''Thursday, February 11, 2021: 8:45 am - 5:00 pm CT'''==
 +
 +
:[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]
 +
:08:45 - 09:00:  Welcome, [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vqD1zQ_S4f7N3cxrRQMrP4Bbb0CXWts9Y61hOOgvCKw/edit?usp=sharing Patent Disclosure Announcement], Agenda Review
 +
:S1: 09:00 - 10:00:  Maintenance (7)
 +
:*Lynn reviewed CP-RAD-457 and will continue to work on.
 +
:*Chris L. reviewed SOLE slides and will work on developing a CP
 +
:S1: 10:00 - 11:00:  AI Whitepaper (8)
 +
:S2: 11:15 - 13:15:  AI Whitepaper (10)
 +
:S3: 13:45 - 14:45:  AI Whitepaper (11)
 +
:*Goal at the end of this meeting is to have a document ready for Public Comment publication.
 +
:*Reviewed all edits to date and uploaded version 5.6 to Google Drive for further review and edits.
 +
:*Brad will be prepared to review version with committee on 2/12.
 +
 +
 +
=='''Friday, February 12, 2021: 8:45 am - 12:00 pm (CT)'''==
 +
 +
:[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]
 +
:08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vqD1zQ_S4f7N3cxrRQMrP4Bbb0CXWts9Y61hOOgvCKw/edit?usp=sharing Patent Disclosure Announcement], Agenda Review
 +
:S1: 09:00 - 10:00:  Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (5)
 +
:S1: 10:00 - 12:00:  AI Whitepaper (12)
 +
:S2: 11:00 - 12:00:  Post meeting profile review (see notes below)
 +
:S2: 12:00 - 12:45:  Scheduling
 +
 +
===Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessments===
 +
 +
* Profile Name: CAM
 +
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
*** Essentially. We line-by-lined the document in the previous meeting and we line-by-lined every change made since then.
 +
** How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
 +
*** Completely
 +
** Which open issues are risky, and why
 +
*** None - mostly simple opinion questions. No radical impact items.
 +
** Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
 +
*** Yes
 +
** Which use cases need more input
 +
*** None
 +
** Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
 +
*** None really
 +
** What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
 +
*** No debates really. A couple questions about attribute vs content queries.
 +
** Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
 +
*** Yes. Chose DIMSE.
 +
** Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate DISCUSSION/text coverage/resolution?
 +
*** Yes. (And chose not to do DICOMweb)
 +
** Review the "effort points" in the evaluation.  Still seems right? Need more?
 +
*** Yes. Right.
 +
** How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
 +
*** Mostly right. Would have been nice to do Phase 2 but that would have been more work.
 +
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
*** Right.
 +
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
 +
*** Good.
 +
** Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
 +
*** It's 3 simple transactions and 2 main use cases. Very simple. No need to drop.
 +
** Have the promised resources manifested
 +
*** Yes
 +
** What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 +
*** Infusion Mgr - (Tomo), CSIMed, <Bracco>, Medtron
 +
*** Image Mgr - Phillips, GE, Siemens, Canon, Visage
 +
*** Consumer - Canon, <Infinitt>
 +
** When will we have sample data/objects
 +
*** Good question - TODO recruit creators - (Talk to Uwe)(See also the PS3.17 examples)(PixelMed validator does the TIDs)(Offis) - Post to Implementation Materials
 +
** Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
 +
*** <Bracco>, <UlrichMedical>, <JIRA>, <Nuance/Bayer?>, <REM Dose Reporters>
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
 +
*** Yes, maybe slightly ahead
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
*** Yes
 +
** How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
 +
*** None
 +
** Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
 +
*** No
 +
 +
 +
===Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment===
 +
 +
* Profile Name: AI Whitepaper
 +
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
*** Nope. It's 100+ pages of (great) content. But also lots of wordsmithing
 +
** How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
 +
*** Soonish
 +
** Which open issues are risky, and why
 +
*** None really. It's a whitepaper. Wide open for comments.
 +
** Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
 +
*** Mostly TODO - would benefit from a pass to list what feedback we are looking for from readers.
 +
** Which use cases need more input - TODO all these should likely turn into Open Issue questions
 +
*** N/A-ish, but what sections do we think are the weakest?
 +
*** Need attention on Clinical Usage
 +
**** especially to cover the breadth of Applications in 2.1
 +
**** get more feedback on how hospital people envision AI being incorporated into their daily work (how do they expect to interact with it)
 +
*** Need some similar attention on Respository/Dataset/Application
 +
*** AI Application Packaging and Integration needs more attention
 +
**** especially to address Transforms in more detail and confirm the target environment variations
 +
*** The Feedback section could use more attention
 +
*** Common Mechanics also not well reviewed
 +
** Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
 +
*** Mostly proceeding as planned
 +
** What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
 +
*** Lots of wordsmithing to do that we just don't have enough time for
 +
*** Working through templates for sections and conforming to the templates - but was absolutely helpful - should have done explicitly earlier
 +
*** Moving text to get it into the "right" section - lots of contributed text described topics in other sections.
 +
*** Whitepaper structure sort of needs to be invented case-by-case, on-the-fly
 +
** Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
 +
*** Lots are.  Many have been incorporated into the WP structure and content
 +
*** The content for a few still needs more depth/completeness - will target asking PC reviewers to help flesh out
 +
*** Haven't really gotten to a point of stability where we could easily vet AIR and AIW-I against the Whitepaper.  Need to work on.
 +
*** Will solicit PC input to resolve more.
 +
** Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate discussion/text coverage/resolution?
 +
*** Mostly yes.
 +
*** "Include by reference" hasn't been explored in depth.  Need more work.
 +
*** Again - transforms needs text
 +
*** Underallocated for Operational Use - should have recognized this as a more inherently complex part of the space. Real-world variability lives here.
 +
*** Might need a little more detail on what feedback includes beyond "pass/fail" for each inference.
 +
*** Also, more coverage of Continuous Learning
 +
** Review the "effort points" in the evaluation.  Still seems right? Need more?
 +
*** Need more.  Relative balance is mostly right, but need a scaling factor to add more time.
 +
** How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
 +
*** Definitely useful as is, but a lot of effort.
 +
*** We did avoid slipping into doing MaxEffort items. We stuck to the Min as described pretty well.  But it was more effort than predicted.
 +
*** Probably could have defined a minimum that was smaller than what we chose, but what we have it good.
 +
*** Might have been good to prioritize the 3.x sections rather than work top to bottom during both development and review.
 +
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
*** Some things are left not fully done.  Did at least a little of all parts, some parts are fully done, some are light to different degrees.
 +
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
 +
*** No.
 +
*** Not fully. But it wasn't so much extra tasks, as it was time to go to full depth on each planned task.
 +
*** (Although templates and planning might have been good)
 +
*** There WAS a lot of re-framing of the whitepaper (which was very useful and part of the process)
 +
** Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
 +
*** 5. Potiential Profiles can be dropped
 +
*** Appendices can be limited to what we have time for
 +
*** 4. Entities can be kept to a minimum
 +
*** If push comes to shove, will drop 4.x sections before dropping any 3.x sections
 +
** Have the promised resources manifested
 +
*** Partial.
 +
*** Lots of people showing up for Authoring Group. A few are good about contributing text that is in the IHE-Style (so doesn't need reworking).
 +
** What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 +
***
 +
** When will we have sample data/objects
 +
** Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
 +
*** MITA AI is ready to review (Kevin - Zack)
 +
*** SIIM is ready to review (Brad - Kathy Andriole)(Kevin - ML Cmte)
 +
*** RSNA RIC (notify them before 22nd Feb Retreat)
 +
*** WG-23 is ready to review (Brad - Brian)
 +
*** ECR
 +
*** ACR (make sure Brian circulates)
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
 +
*** No.
 +
*** Not fully. It's a big piece of work. It arrived with good overall structure.
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
*** No.
 +
*** Not fully. Lots of good re-work was done but couldn't cover all the sections.
 +
** How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
 +
*** At least one to comment/approve for PC Mar 4 call at 11am Central 1.5 hrs.
 +
*** Authoring Group will meet at least twice in next two weeks to finalize.
 +
*** Will have to request full document review be done by TC members offline.
 +
**** TODO Assign sections - Google signup sheet? - Have authors flag sections that need review the most
 +
*****
 +
**** Remind TC to bring issues that NEED to resolve before PC on Mar 4, and save rest for PC submission.
 +
** Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
 +
*** Plan at least one temp
 +
*** Week of March 29th (March 22 week is WG6)

Latest revision as of 15:51, 23 February 2021

Monday, February 8, 2021: 8:15 - 5:00 pm Central Time (CT)

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:15 - 08:30: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (2)
  • Reviewed and edited document.
S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (0 due to deferring to S3)
  • Defer to S3
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (2)
  • Brad is the keeper of the document. Committee members can make edits in their own document and send to Brad to consolidate into one document.
S3: 13:45 – 15:45 Maintenance (2.5)
  • Reviewed and Assigned two submitted CPs:
    • CP-RAD-459 SOLE: fix inconsistency of the audit event example
    • CP-RAD-460 XCA-I Clarify IIG behavior in local community Reviewed and completed CP-RAD-456 - Enterprise Identity Option - Issuer of Other Patient ID
    • Reviewed CP-RAD-453 - Clarify Implicit Post-processing Workflow
S4: 16:00 - 17:00: Not TC Time. Available for Authoring Groups if needed
  • Time not needed

Tuesday, February 9, 2021: 8:45 am - 3:00 pm CT

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00am AI Whitepaper (3)
  • Review of updates.
S1: 10:00 - 11:00am Maintenance (3.5)
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (5)
  • Brad will upload most updated paper to Google Docs (version 0.5.3)
  • Please label any updates with your name and use change tracking
  • Brad will update the document with all changes
Meeting adjourned at 13:20.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021: 8:15 am - 5:00 pm (CT)

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:15 - 08:30: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 08:30 - 10:30: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (4)
  • Add to maintenance section: Split storage commitment change out of CAM and into a CP
S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (4)
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (7)
  • Action for 2/11: Finish 3.1.9, read through blocks of 4 and content review of blocks 3.2 - 3.9; clinical use cases will require a bit of discussion
  • Action: Brad will upload updated document on Google Drive
S3: 13:45 - 15:45: Maintenance (6)
  • Review the IOCM update to handle undelete
  • Split storage commitment change out of CAM and into a CP
  • Review SOLE CP's on 2/11.
  • Add additional hour on Friday 2/12 agenda (11am-12pm CT)
Meeting adjourned at 4pm.

Thursday, February 11, 2021: 8:45 am - 5:00 pm CT

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00: Maintenance (7)
  • Lynn reviewed CP-RAD-457 and will continue to work on.
  • Chris L. reviewed SOLE slides and will work on developing a CP
S1: 10:00 - 11:00: AI Whitepaper (8)
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (10)
S3: 13:45 - 14:45: AI Whitepaper (11)
  • Goal at the end of this meeting is to have a document ready for Public Comment publication.
  • Reviewed all edits to date and uploaded version 5.6 to Google Drive for further review and edits.
  • Brad will be prepared to review version with committee on 2/12.


Friday, February 12, 2021: 8:45 am - 12:00 pm (CT)

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00: Contrast Administration Management (CAM) (5)
S1: 10:00 - 12:00: AI Whitepaper (12)
S2: 11:00 - 12:00: Post meeting profile review (see notes below)
S2: 12:00 - 12:45: Scheduling

Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessments

  • Profile Name: CAM
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
      • Essentially. We line-by-lined the document in the previous meeting and we line-by-lined every change made since then.
    • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
      • Completely
    • Which open issues are risky, and why
      • None - mostly simple opinion questions. No radical impact items.
    • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
      • Yes
    • Which use cases need more input
      • None
    • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
      • None really
    • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
      • No debates really. A couple questions about attribute vs content queries.
    • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
      • Yes. Chose DIMSE.
    • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate DISCUSSION/text coverage/resolution?
      • Yes. (And chose not to do DICOMweb)
    • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
      • Yes. Right.
    • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
      • Mostly right. Would have been nice to do Phase 2 but that would have been more work.
    • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
      • Right.
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
      • Good.
    • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
      • It's 3 simple transactions and 2 main use cases. Very simple. No need to drop.
    • Have the promised resources manifested
      • Yes
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
      • Infusion Mgr - (Tomo), CSIMed, <Bracco>, Medtron
      • Image Mgr - Phillips, GE, Siemens, Canon, Visage
      • Consumer - Canon, <Infinitt>
    • When will we have sample data/objects
      • Good question - TODO recruit creators - (Talk to Uwe)(See also the PS3.17 examples)(PixelMed validator does the TIDs)(Offis) - Post to Implementation Materials
    • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
      • <Bracco>, <UlrichMedical>, <JIRA>, <Nuance/Bayer?>, <REM Dose Reporters>
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
      • Yes, maybe slightly ahead
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
      • Yes
    • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
      • None
    • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
      • No


Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment

  • Profile Name: AI Whitepaper
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
      • Nope. It's 100+ pages of (great) content. But also lots of wordsmithing
    • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
      • Soonish
    • Which open issues are risky, and why
      • None really. It's a whitepaper. Wide open for comments.
    • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
      • Mostly TODO - would benefit from a pass to list what feedback we are looking for from readers.
    • Which use cases need more input - TODO all these should likely turn into Open Issue questions
      • N/A-ish, but what sections do we think are the weakest?
      • Need attention on Clinical Usage
        • especially to cover the breadth of Applications in 2.1
        • get more feedback on how hospital people envision AI being incorporated into their daily work (how do they expect to interact with it)
      • Need some similar attention on Respository/Dataset/Application
      • AI Application Packaging and Integration needs more attention
        • especially to address Transforms in more detail and confirm the target environment variations
      • The Feedback section could use more attention
      • Common Mechanics also not well reviewed
    • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
      • Mostly proceeding as planned
    • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
      • Lots of wordsmithing to do that we just don't have enough time for
      • Working through templates for sections and conforming to the templates - but was absolutely helpful - should have done explicitly earlier
      • Moving text to get it into the "right" section - lots of contributed text described topics in other sections.
      • Whitepaper structure sort of needs to be invented case-by-case, on-the-fly
    • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
      • Lots are. Many have been incorporated into the WP structure and content
      • The content for a few still needs more depth/completeness - will target asking PC reviewers to help flesh out
      • Haven't really gotten to a point of stability where we could easily vet AIR and AIW-I against the Whitepaper. Need to work on.
      • Will solicit PC input to resolve more.
    • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate discussion/text coverage/resolution?
      • Mostly yes.
      • "Include by reference" hasn't been explored in depth. Need more work.
      • Again - transforms needs text
      • Underallocated for Operational Use - should have recognized this as a more inherently complex part of the space. Real-world variability lives here.
      • Might need a little more detail on what feedback includes beyond "pass/fail" for each inference.
      • Also, more coverage of Continuous Learning
    • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
      • Need more. Relative balance is mostly right, but need a scaling factor to add more time.
    • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
      • Definitely useful as is, but a lot of effort.
      • We did avoid slipping into doing MaxEffort items. We stuck to the Min as described pretty well. But it was more effort than predicted.
      • Probably could have defined a minimum that was smaller than what we chose, but what we have it good.
      • Might have been good to prioritize the 3.x sections rather than work top to bottom during both development and review.
    • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
      • Some things are left not fully done. Did at least a little of all parts, some parts are fully done, some are light to different degrees.
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
      • No.
      • Not fully. But it wasn't so much extra tasks, as it was time to go to full depth on each planned task.
      • (Although templates and planning might have been good)
      • There WAS a lot of re-framing of the whitepaper (which was very useful and part of the process)
    • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
      • 5. Potiential Profiles can be dropped
      • Appendices can be limited to what we have time for
      • 4. Entities can be kept to a minimum
      • If push comes to shove, will drop 4.x sections before dropping any 3.x sections
    • Have the promised resources manifested
      • Partial.
      • Lots of people showing up for Authoring Group. A few are good about contributing text that is in the IHE-Style (so doesn't need reworking).
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
    • When will we have sample data/objects
    • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
      • MITA AI is ready to review (Kevin - Zack)
      • SIIM is ready to review (Brad - Kathy Andriole)(Kevin - ML Cmte)
      • RSNA RIC (notify them before 22nd Feb Retreat)
      • WG-23 is ready to review (Brad - Brian)
      • ECR
      • ACR (make sure Brian circulates)
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
      • No.
      • Not fully. It's a big piece of work. It arrived with good overall structure.
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
      • No.
      • Not fully. Lots of good re-work was done but couldn't cover all the sections.
    • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
      • At least one to comment/approve for PC Mar 4 call at 11am Central 1.5 hrs.
      • Authoring Group will meet at least twice in next two weeks to finalize.
      • Will have to request full document review be done by TC members offline.
        • TODO Assign sections - Google signup sheet? - Have authors flag sections that need review the most
        • Remind TC to bring issues that NEED to resolve before PC on Mar 4, and save rest for PC submission.
    • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
      • Plan at least one temp
      • Week of March 29th (March 22 week is WG6)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2020-02-08-12&oldid=124317"