SWF.b FT Evaluation
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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"
- Yes. Significant CPs identified and addressed. See [1]
- Note non-critical CPs within the :::::::::CP Tracking Spreadsheet?
- 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?
- Yes, see SWF.b Public Comment Tracker
- Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
- Yes, see SWF.b Supplement
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Yes, after checking with Lynn Felhofer, all connectathon issues have been addressed through CPs
- Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
- 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
- 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?
- Yes, see CAT results extract
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes, need Lynn to confirm TODO by Lynn
- 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?)
- Yes, 12 products in IHE Product Registry, many others have not registered in the product registry. Also see 2019 IHE Radiology Domain Report
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- No issues have been raised.
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes, see SWF.b overview