WIA FT Evaluation

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-xxx - WIA missing audit triggers

• Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?

[Kinson] 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?

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.

• Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?

yes

• Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

Yes. Web-based Image Access

PC Conclusion

TBD