SWF.b FT Evaluation
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?
- (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