Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2021-04-12-16"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(TI-Prep Closing Assessments)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 46: Line 46:
 
:*CP-RAD-456: SOLE: update to enable ITI-20 FHIR semantics
 
:*CP-RAD-456: SOLE: update to enable ITI-20 FHIR semantics
 
:**This CP (also in ‘Assigned' on Google Drive) contains updates based on today’s discussion, removing the options (Syslog or FHIR) for the Event Reporter and EventConsumer, and specifying the semantic choices in the Actor Requirements instead.  We retain interoperability by mandating that the Event Repository support both Syslog and FHIR semantics
 
:**This CP (also in ‘Assigned' on Google Drive) contains updates based on today’s discussion, removing the options (Syslog or FHIR) for the Event Reporter and EventConsumer, and specifying the semantic choices in the Actor Requirements instead.  We retain interoperability by mandating that the Event Repository support both Syslog and FHIR semantics
 +
 +
 +
=='''Thursday, April 15, 2021: 8:45 am - 2:45 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 (7.25)
 +
:*CP-RAD-460-08 XCA-I Clarify IIG and RIG behavior with local community and remote community
 +
:**Decided today to include the PDF version in the ballot package because Mac—>Word distorts the large figure replaced in the CP for some reviewers
 +
:**Need to finalize the next ballot content and timing before the week is over.
 +
:*CP-RAD-460-06 in the Assigned folder in google drive contains the updates based on today’s discussion.
 +
:**RAD Tech will resume work on this CP in the Actor Rqmts for the Event Repository, around line 100 in the document
 +
:**The next opportunity to discuss this will be at the next IHE RAD CP processing call on Thurs May 6, 10-11 CDT.
 +
:S1: 10:00 - 11:00:  AI Whitepaper (8.75)
 +
:*Continued resolving comments.
 +
:S2: 11:15 - 13:15:  AI Whitepaper (10.75)
 +
:*Continued resolving comments.
 +
:S3: 13:45 - 14:45:  AI Whitepaper (11.75)
 +
:*Continued resolving comments.
 +
:S4: 16:00 - 17:00:  Not TC Time. Available for Authoring Groups if needed
 +
 +
 +
=='''Friday, April April 16, 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)
 +
:*Motioned to approve for TI. Motion accepted and unanimously approved.
 +
:*Lynn will review it before sending to Mary Jungers. It will now be eligible for testing at the IHE NA Connectathon in 2022.
 +
:S1: 10:00 - 11:00:  AI Whitepaper (12.75)
 +
:S2: 11:00 - 12:00:  Maintenance
 +
:*Updated 460-09 will be the ballot version. RAD Tech accepted this suggestion with slight modification in red.
 +
:S3: 12:00 - 12:30: Checkpoint for work done
 +
 +
==TI-Prep Closing Assessments==
 +
 +
* CAM (Contrast Administration Management)
 +
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
*** We line-by-lined previously; no changes were major and all changes were reviewed
 +
** How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
 +
*** Completely (noting potential CP from WG-6)
 +
**** The CP is a "nice to have" for filtering. Not critical to implementation
 +
** How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
*** Small amount of time to spare
 +
** Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
 +
*** It was a simple profile so the evaluations seemed pretty on target
 +
** Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
 +
*** Not over.
 +
** Are all the open issues closed?
 +
*** Yes (except the two referred to WG-6)
 +
** What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
 +
*** No significant debates.
 +
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
 +
*** Yes.
 +
** What residual risks are worth noting
 +
*** None seen.
 +
** Does it feel we've met all the use cases
 +
*** Yes
 +
** Did the promised resources manifest
 +
*** Yes
 +
** What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 +
*** Infusion Manager: Nemoto, CSImed, Guerbet, Bracco, Medtron?
 +
*** Contrast Information Consumers: (None but Infinitt expressed interest)
 +
** Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
 +
*** Uwe will reach out to Infinitt, Tomo and Salt will reach out to Japanese vendors. Stephan Bauman might be interested.
 +
*** Targeting a specific Connectathon would likely help - Lynn can "cc/oversee" discussions on this to keep vendor neutrality
 +
*** Steve says they might be interested, will check.
 +
** When will we have sample data/objects
 +
*** Lynn can coordinate. (Note the new Sharezone concept from IHE) - Uwe might be able to provide some samples (manually generated) later this summer
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
*** Yes. No gap
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
*** Yes. No gap
 +
** Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
 +
*** No.
 +
 +
 +
* AIIiI-WP (AI Interoperability in Imaging Whitepaper)
 +
** Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
*** No. More than half done though.
 +
** How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
 +
*** Soonish
 +
** How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
*** Some things were left undone (line by line of a number of sections)
 +
*** It's a large and interesting space and WP is less constrained than a Profile so there is natural expansion of exploration.
 +
*** Also, being an "undefined" space, the "mapping" is necessary and is the point of the work.
 +
** Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
 +
*** See color coding on Estimate document. (Might transcribe here later)
 +
** Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
 +
*** (Hard to say, not done yet.  Overall the COMMITTEE hasn't been tasked with overage yet, but the AUTHORING group has done quite a bit)
 +
** Are all the open issues closed?
 +
*** Not yet, but they were more information collection, not design gaps to be addressed.
 +
** What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
 +
*** No large debates, but many discussions to reach consensus on concepts (which again may be the nature of the WP)
 +
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
 +
*** New Use Case Groupings emerged, Entities got factored out, Split use cases into why and how,
 +
*** With WP it's hard to predict the breakdown/content/structure as clearly - need different "mechanics" for whitepapers
 +
** What residual risks are worth noting
 +
*** Being a WP reduces risk, but main remaining is the technology is still evolving - might need "maintenance" on content
 +
** Does it feel we've met all the use cases
 +
*** Coverage feels good.
 +
*** Ended up with more use cases. There was some expansion, but that was part of discovery/modelling/analyzing the space.
 +
*** The product reflects there was a certain amount of uncertainty about the content and scope boundaries at the start (which is why we do Whitepapers)
 +
*** Deciding the depth also was a (useful) point of discussion and affected the amount of work.
 +
** Did the promised resources manifest
 +
*** Mostly yes, lots of good engagement and work in the authoring group.
 +
*** A few gaps in our feedback/commenter wishlist. Still ended up with a good set of comments.
 +
** What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 +
*** (Do have AI developers, users, infrastructure, but there aren't really actors yet)
 +
** Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates) - Read as "WP Distribution/Communication Plans"
 +
*** Similar to where we promoted PC.
 +
*** Present at industry events - make available to Profile Proposal Submitters - outreach - note Rad Tech will use this to frame AI Work so use it in your proposal
 +
** When will we have sample data/objects
 +
*** N/A
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
*** Not exactly.
 +
**** Still had sections we hadn't line-by-lined.
 +
**** Because of late comment deadline, couldn't really get proposed resolutions in place before meeting
 +
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
 +
*** Not exactly.
 +
*** Not as much of an issue because it's not going to Connectathon, but it is intended to be used in July/Aug for Proposals.
 +
*** Basically have a bunch of comments to finish working through (15 to review, 70 to do edits and review, 80 (mostly LOW) to triage, edit and review 
 +
** Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
 +
*** Yes. TC needs to review about 150 edits. Authoring group can work on most of the triage/edit but may have a few that need discussion.
 +
*** Schedule three 1 hour call separated by 2 weeks - 50 edits each for review - TC looks at offline. AG steps through during meeting. TC and AG can focus attention on specific ones.

Latest revision as of 10:47, 16 April 2021

Monday, April 12, 2021: 8:15 - 3:45 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 completed 25 comments
S2: 10:45 - 11:30: Maintenance (.75)
S2: 11:30 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (1.75)
S3: 13:45 – 15:45 Maintenance (2.75)


Tuesday, April 13, 2021: 8:45 am - 1:15 pm CT

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00am AI Whitepaper (2.75)
  • Continued resolving comments
S1: 10:00 - 11:00am Maintenance (3.75)
  • New CP: CP-RAD-463: Add RDSR Display Option REM
    • Determine how to package.
    • Explore a mid-range process. KO may start a draft table comparing the CP path on one side, profile on the other and review
    • Other notes added in the Rationale portion of the CP document
  • CP-RAD-423: IOCM
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (4.75)
  • Continued resolving comments.


Wednesday, April 14, 2021: 8:15 am - 3:45 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)
  • Continued resolving comments. Will finalize on Friday's session.
S2: 10:45 - 11:15: Maintenance (4.25)
  • Review IHE Radiology Domain Report to determine steps needed to complete.
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (6.75)
  • Continued resolving comments. Will determine how many calls are needed to complete.
S3: 13:45 - 15:45: Maintenance (6.25)
  • This 640-08version contains updates to the XCA-I CP based on today’s discussion. There are two sentences highlighted in blue that I updated after the discussion, in particular, one to clarify that the local Imaging Doc Consumer can choose to retrieve directly from a local Img Doc Source rather than going through its IIG.
    • We hope to call this ballot-ready on Friday. Pre-ballot tweaks are welcomed.
  • CP-RAD-456: SOLE: update to enable ITI-20 FHIR semantics
    • This CP (also in ‘Assigned' on Google Drive) contains updates based on today’s discussion, removing the options (Syslog or FHIR) for the Event Reporter and EventConsumer, and specifying the semantic choices in the Actor Requirements instead. We retain interoperability by mandating that the Event Repository support both Syslog and FHIR semantics


Thursday, April 15, 2021: 8:45 am - 2:45 pm CT

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
08:45 - 09:00: Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review
S1: 09:00 - 10:00: Maintenance (7.25)
  • CP-RAD-460-08 XCA-I Clarify IIG and RIG behavior with local community and remote community
    • Decided today to include the PDF version in the ballot package because Mac—>Word distorts the large figure replaced in the CP for some reviewers
    • Need to finalize the next ballot content and timing before the week is over.
  • CP-RAD-460-06 in the Assigned folder in google drive contains the updates based on today’s discussion.
    • RAD Tech will resume work on this CP in the Actor Rqmts for the Event Repository, around line 100 in the document
    • The next opportunity to discuss this will be at the next IHE RAD CP processing call on Thurs May 6, 10-11 CDT.
S1: 10:00 - 11:00: AI Whitepaper (8.75)
  • Continued resolving comments.
S2: 11:15 - 13:15: AI Whitepaper (10.75)
  • Continued resolving comments.
S3: 13:45 - 14:45: AI Whitepaper (11.75)
  • Continued resolving comments.
S4: 16:00 - 17:00: Not TC Time. Available for Authoring Groups if needed


Friday, April April 16, 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)
  • Motioned to approve for TI. Motion accepted and unanimously approved.
  • Lynn will review it before sending to Mary Jungers. It will now be eligible for testing at the IHE NA Connectathon in 2022.
S1: 10:00 - 11:00: AI Whitepaper (12.75)
S2: 11:00 - 12:00: Maintenance
  • Updated 460-09 will be the ballot version. RAD Tech accepted this suggestion with slight modification in red.
S3: 12:00 - 12:30: Checkpoint for work done

TI-Prep Closing Assessments

  • CAM (Contrast Administration Management)
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
      • We line-by-lined previously; no changes were major and all changes were reviewed
    • How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
      • Completely (noting potential CP from WG-6)
        • The CP is a "nice to have" for filtering. Not critical to implementation
    • How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
      • Small amount of time to spare
    • Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
      • It was a simple profile so the evaluations seemed pretty on target
    • Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
      • Not over.
    • Are all the open issues closed?
      • Yes (except the two referred to WG-6)
    • What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
      • No significant debates.
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
      • Yes.
    • What residual risks are worth noting
      • None seen.
    • Does it feel we've met all the use cases
      • Yes
    • Did the promised resources manifest
      • Yes
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
      • Infusion Manager: Nemoto, CSImed, Guerbet, Bracco, Medtron?
      • Contrast Information Consumers: (None but Infinitt expressed interest)
    • Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
      • Uwe will reach out to Infinitt, Tomo and Salt will reach out to Japanese vendors. Stephan Bauman might be interested.
      • Targeting a specific Connectathon would likely help - Lynn can "cc/oversee" discussions on this to keep vendor neutrality
      • Steve says they might be interested, will check.
    • When will we have sample data/objects
      • Lynn can coordinate. (Note the new Sharezone concept from IHE) - Uwe might be able to provide some samples (manually generated) later this summer
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
      • Yes. No gap
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
      • Yes. No gap
    • Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
      • No.


  • AIIiI-WP (AI Interoperability in Imaging Whitepaper)
    • Did we line-by-line the entire document
      • No. More than half done though.
    • How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
      • Soonish
    • How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
      • Some things were left undone (line by line of a number of sections)
      • It's a large and interesting space and WP is less constrained than a Profile so there is natural expansion of exploration.
      • Also, being an "undefined" space, the "mapping" is necessary and is the point of the work.
    • Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
      • See color coding on Estimate document. (Might transcribe here later)
    • Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
      • (Hard to say, not done yet. Overall the COMMITTEE hasn't been tasked with overage yet, but the AUTHORING group has done quite a bit)
    • Are all the open issues closed?
      • Not yet, but they were more information collection, not design gaps to be addressed.
    • What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
      • No large debates, but many discussions to reach consensus on concepts (which again may be the nature of the WP)
    • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
      • New Use Case Groupings emerged, Entities got factored out, Split use cases into why and how,
      • With WP it's hard to predict the breakdown/content/structure as clearly - need different "mechanics" for whitepapers
    • What residual risks are worth noting
      • Being a WP reduces risk, but main remaining is the technology is still evolving - might need "maintenance" on content
    • Does it feel we've met all the use cases
      • Coverage feels good.
      • Ended up with more use cases. There was some expansion, but that was part of discovery/modelling/analyzing the space.
      • The product reflects there was a certain amount of uncertainty about the content and scope boundaries at the start (which is why we do Whitepapers)
      • Deciding the depth also was a (useful) point of discussion and affected the amount of work.
    • Did the promised resources manifest
      • Mostly yes, lots of good engagement and work in the authoring group.
      • A few gaps in our feedback/commenter wishlist. Still ended up with a good set of comments.
    • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
      • (Do have AI developers, users, infrastructure, but there aren't really actors yet)
    • Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates) - Read as "WP Distribution/Communication Plans"
      • Similar to where we promoted PC.
      • Present at industry events - make available to Profile Proposal Submitters - outreach - note Rad Tech will use this to frame AI Work so use it in your proposal
    • When will we have sample data/objects
      • N/A
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
      • Not exactly.
        • Still had sections we hadn't line-by-lined.
        • Because of late comment deadline, couldn't really get proposed resolutions in place before meeting
    • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
      • Not exactly.
      • Not as much of an issue because it's not going to Connectathon, but it is intended to be used in July/Aug for Proposals.
      • Basically have a bunch of comments to finish working through (15 to review, 70 to do edits and review, 80 (mostly LOW) to triage, edit and review
    • Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
      • Yes. TC needs to review about 150 edits. Authoring group can work on most of the triage/edit but may have a few that need discussion.
      • Schedule three 1 hour call separated by 2 weeks - 50 edits each for review - TC looks at offline. AG steps through during meeting. TC and AG can focus attention on specific ones.