Difference between revisions of "SWF.b FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Planning Committee Checklist)
(Technical Committee Checklist)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
* Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"
 
* Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"
 
::* Yes. Significant CPs identified and addressed. See [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Radiology/TF_Maintenance/2_Ready%20to%20Publish%20in%20Ballot/]
 
::* Yes. Significant CPs identified and addressed. See [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Radiology/TF_Maintenance/2_Ready%20to%20Publish%20in%20Ballot/]
::* Note <font color="blue">non-critical CPs within the :::::::::[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]?
+
::* Note <font color="blue">non-critical CPs within the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]?
 
:::* CP-RAD-224
 
:::* CP-RAD-224
 
:::* CP-RAD-228
 
:::* CP-RAD-228

Revision as of 12:17, 31 January 2020

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"
  • CP-RAD-224
  • CP-RAD-228
  • CP-RAD-232
  • CP-RAD-257
  • CP-RAD-299
  • CP-RAD-343
  • CP-RAD-353
  • CP-RAD-354
  • CP-RAD-422
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
  • Yes, DICOM CP1743 in final text
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
  • Yes, after checking with Lynn Felhofer, all connectathon issues have been addressed through CPs
  • Yes, see above
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
  • Yes, 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?
  • Yes, Korea (no HL7), Europe and North America
CAT results
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
  • Yes, see above
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
  • Yes, except for the Enterprise Identity Option
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
  • Yes, DICOM and HL7v2.5 validators available in gazelle
  • TODO by Lynn: Add tooling limitation
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
  • Yes, DICOM and HL7 v2.5 are widely implemented although HL7 v2.3 is also widely adopted. Does this impact the retirement of SWF + PIR?
  • (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?
  • Yes, all significant issues have been addressed. There are still outstanding CPs.