Difference between revisions of "SWF.b FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
 
== Planning Committee Checklist ==
 
== Planning Committee Checklist ==
  
Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
+
* Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
+
* Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
+
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
+
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
+
* 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?)
+
* (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?
+
* 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 [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
+
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]

Revision as of 09:13, 14 November 2019

Proposal

The Scheduled Workflow.b profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Steve Nichols) Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

Technical Committee Checklist

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
  • Steve to add
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
  • Steve to add
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
  • Yes
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
  • Steve to add
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
  • After checking with Lynn Felhofer, all connectathon issues have been addressed through CPs
  • See above
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
  • See above

Technical Committee Consensus

  • The Technical Committee agreed to continue with the Final Text Process and continue with an evaluation by the Planning Committee

Planning Committee Checklist

  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
  • 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