Difference between revisions of "WIA FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
* Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
 
* Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
:: Mostly.  <font color="blue">Open CPs</font>:
+
:: Mostly.  <font color="blue">CPs still assigned</font>:
 
::: CP-RAD-413 - WIA supplement contains a link to an example with unresolved change tracking
 
::: CP-RAD-413 - WIA supplement contains a link to an example with unresolved change tracking
::: CP-RAD-xxx - WIA missing audit triggers
+
::: CP-RAD-536 - Add missing audit triggers for RAD-129, -107 (QIDO-RS, WADO-RS)
 +
 
 +
:: Note that CP-RAD-527 Add WADO-RS as an option for image retrieve in XDS-I was balloted, is Final Text, and is queued to be integrated into the TF in June 2024
 +
 
 +
:: RAD Tech has reviewed these open CPs and concluded that they do not present an obstacle to moving WIA to FT.  THey will be balloted in 2024 and integrated in 2025.
  
 
* Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
 
* Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
:: [Kinson] No pending CPs for underlying standards
+
:: [Kinson] Yes
 +
::: No pending CPs for underlying standards
  
 
* Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?  
 
* Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?  
Line 23: Line 28:
  
 
* Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
 
* Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
:: [Kinson] DICOMweb query/retrieve capability are well adopted in implementations. The XDS-I Backend Option and MHD Document Consumer Integration Option has not been tested at Connectathon.
+
:: [Kinson] DICOMweb query/retrieve capability are well adopted in implementations. The XDS-I Backend Option and MHD Document Consumer Integration Option has not been tested at Connectathon; see related comment below. (no questionnaire performed)
  
 
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
 
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
Line 30: Line 35:
  
 
===TC Conclusion===
 
===TC Conclusion===
The core of WIA '''have''' been tested, but there appears to be no interest in the defined named options. Tech Cmte proposes to move forward publishing WIA as final text, including the named options. In case implementors are interested in testing the named options in the future and identified new requirements, then new named options can be defined if necessary.
+
The core of WIA '''have''' been tested, but there appears to be no interest in the defined named options. The open CPs can be balloted and integrated into Final Text without introducing any 'breaking changes'
 +
 
 +
Tech Cmte proposes to move forward publishing WIA as final text, including the named options. In case implementors are interested in testing the named options in the future and identified new requirements, then new named options can be defined if necessary.
  
 
==PC Checklist==
 
==PC Checklist==
  
 
* Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
 
* Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
** Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
 
** It's helpful to assign an advocate for the supplement at this time to check/prepare the evidence for the upcoming checklist rather than go hunting for it during the meeting
 
 
  
 
* Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
 
* Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
:: <font color="blue"> (Check with Lynn) </font>
+
:: Yes
 +
::: Successful testing in 4 EU Connectathons, and 4 NA Connectathons, and the joint EU/NA CAT in 2022
  
 
* 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?
 
:: Yes for core capabilities.
 
:: Yes for core capabilities.
:: Named options XDS-I Backend and MHD Document Consumer Integration Options have not been tested.
 
  
 
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
 
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
 
:: Yes.
 
:: Yes.
:: Imaging Document Consumer (10 vendors successfully tested)
+
::: Imaging Document Consumer (10 different vendors successfully tested)
:: Imaging Document Responder (11 vendors successfully tested)
+
::: Imaging Document Responder (11 vendors successfully tested)
:: Imaging Document Source (11 vendors successfully tested)
+
::: Imaging Document Source (11 vendors successfully 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?
:: No options have been tested.
+
:: <font color="blue">No</font>
 +
:: Named options XDS-I Backend and MHD Document Consumer Integration Options have not been tested.  [from Lynn] Interestingly, vendors have registered to test these at several EU Connectathons, but always withdrew from testing the option (not sure why).
  
 
* Is there IHE-provided software testing infrastructure that addresses all aspects of the profile?
 
* Is there IHE-provided software testing infrastructure that addresses all aspects of the profile?
:: RAD-129 QIDO-RS Query - Gazelle External Validation Service (EVS) contains a validator for QIDO-RS Request and Response,
+
:: Yes, partial
:: RAD-109 WADO-RS Retrieve - no tool
+
::: RAD-129 QIDO-RS Query - Gazelle External Validation Service (EVS) contains a validator for QIDO-RS Request and Response,
 +
::: RAD-109 WADO-RS Retrieve - no tool
  
 
* 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?
 
:: DICOMweb QIDO-RS and WADO-RS have been widely implemented in healthcare in similar use cases.
 
:: DICOMweb QIDO-RS and WADO-RS have been widely implemented in healthcare in similar use cases.
  
* (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?
 
:: Many vendors (open source and commercial) have DICOMweb QIDO-RS and WADO-RS capability in production systems. OHIF, Orthanc, dcm4chee, Agfa, Google Cloud Platform, etc.  
 
:: Many vendors (open source and commercial) have DICOMweb QIDO-RS and WADO-RS capability in production systems. OHIF, Orthanc, dcm4chee, Agfa, Google Cloud Platform, etc.  
 +
:: Vendors with IHE Integration Statements containing WIA.  Google search reveals GE Healthcare, Nexus/Chili. Note that many companies may not put TI profiles in their IS.  There are more DICOM Conformance statements using DICOMweb.
  
 
* 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?
 
:: yes
 
:: yes
  
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
+
* Is there a one-page summary of the profile [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
 
:: Yes. [[Web-based Image Access]]
 
:: Yes. [[Web-based Image Access]]
  
 
===PC Conclusion===
 
===PC Conclusion===
 
: TBD
 
: TBD

Latest revision as of 11:09, 18 April 2024

Web-based Image Access has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Kinson Ho)

Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

TC Checklist

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
Mostly. CPs still assigned:
CP-RAD-413 - WIA supplement contains a link to an example with unresolved change tracking
CP-RAD-536 - Add missing audit triggers for RAD-129, -107 (QIDO-RS, WADO-RS)
Note that CP-RAD-527 Add WADO-RS as an option for image retrieve in XDS-I was balloted, is Final Text, and is queued to be integrated into the TF in June 2024
RAD Tech has reviewed these open CPs and concluded that they do not present an obstacle to moving WIA to FT. THey will be balloted in 2024 and integrated in 2025.
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
[Kinson] Yes
No pending CPs for underlying standards
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
[Kinson] Yes.
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
[Kinson] Yes.
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
[Kinson] Yes.
  • Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
[Kinson] DICOMweb query/retrieve capability are well adopted in implementations. The XDS-I Backend Option and MHD Document Consumer Integration Option has not been tested at Connectathon; see related comment below. (no questionnaire performed)
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
[Kinson] Yes. No issues.


TC Conclusion

The core of WIA have been tested, but there appears to be no interest in the defined named options. The open CPs can be balloted and integrated into Final Text without introducing any 'breaking changes'

Tech Cmte proposes to move forward publishing WIA as final text, including the named options. In case implementors are interested in testing the named options in the future and identified new requirements, then new named options can be defined if necessary.

PC Checklist

  • Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
Yes
Successful testing in 4 EU Connectathons, and 4 NA Connectathons, and the joint EU/NA CAT in 2022
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
Yes for core capabilities.
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
Yes.
Imaging Document Consumer (10 different vendors successfully tested)
Imaging Document Responder (11 vendors successfully tested)
Imaging Document Source (11 vendors successfully tested)
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
No
Named options XDS-I Backend and MHD Document Consumer Integration Options have not been tested. [from Lynn] Interestingly, vendors have registered to test these at several EU Connectathons, but always withdrew from testing the option (not sure why).
  • Is there IHE-provided software testing infrastructure that addresses all aspects of the profile?
Yes, partial
RAD-129 QIDO-RS Query - Gazelle External Validation Service (EVS) contains a validator for QIDO-RS Request and Response,
RAD-109 WADO-RS Retrieve - no tool
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
DICOMweb QIDO-RS and WADO-RS have been widely implemented in healthcare in similar use cases.
  • 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?
Many vendors (open source and commercial) have DICOMweb QIDO-RS and WADO-RS capability in production systems. OHIF, Orthanc, dcm4chee, Agfa, Google Cloud Platform, etc.
Vendors with IHE Integration Statements containing WIA. Google search reveals GE Healthcare, Nexus/Chili. Note that many companies may not put TI profiles in their IS. There are more DICOM Conformance statements using DICOMweb.
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
yes
Yes. Web-based Image Access

PC Conclusion

TBD