XCA-I FT Evaluation

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 10:30, 29 May 2013 by Lindop (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

XCA-I - Cross-Community_Access_for_Imaging has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop)

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

TC Checklist

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
Yes. Open CPs:
223 - Consistent SOAP definitions for XCA-I transactions.
This CP will be pre-requisite for final text. Will go out in the 2013 ballot pack.
234 - erroneously claims to add CDA option to XCA-I. This will not be done.
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
ITI 650 OASIS/ebXML Registry Information Model constraint or IHE ITI TF Example change
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
Limited number of Initiating Gateways supporting Async. Async option has been lightly tested as Connectathon. We are depending upon vendor testing.
Async is not the primary mode of operation. Vendors who have tested, do have experince testing async capabilities in other profiles.
No tooling specific for XCA-I or XDS-I.b. Tools do exist for XDS.b and XCA.
T&T intends to deliver XDS-I.b tools in 2013.
Interoperability testing of XDS-I.b and XCA-I has been preformed in terms of successful transfer/display. However it is possible/likely these implementations may not fully comply with the technical framework specification (why tooling is needed)
There may be implementation gaps but there is no reason to suspect issues with the specification.
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
Yes. No other issues than
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
One open issue will be closed pending homework

TC Conclusion

Technical Committee reccomends promotion to Final Text

PC Checklist

  • 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?
Yes. NA (2012, 2013) EU (2012, 2013)
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
Yes. NA (2012, 2013) EU (2012, 2013)
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
Yes. (9 vendors have tested various actors)
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
(Check with Lynn)
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
(Check with Lynn)
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
Yes. (ITI XCA, XDS-I.b, )
  • (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. 6 Products listed in Product Registry.
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?

Open Item: 1. Can a non-DICOM-wrapped JPEG be transferred “WADO-like” through a proxy? (Cross-Gateway Imaging Document Set Retrieve)

A WADO-like transport is not part of the specification for this profile.


PC Conclusion