Difference between revisions of "XDS-I.b FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing of Images has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop) Per the Final Text Process, <font color="blue">Ite...")
 
Line 8: Line 8:
 
:: Mostly.  Open CPs:
 
:: Mostly.  Open CPs:
 
::: 187 - Clarify RAD-69 Response Expected Action for JPIP transfer syntaxes
 
::: 187 - Clarify RAD-69 Response Expected Action for JPIP transfer syntaxes
::: <font color="blue"> 216 - Resolve RetrieveImagingDocumentSet Action Inconsistency between TF and WSDL </font>
+
::: 216 - Resolve RetrieveImagingDocumentSet Action Inconsistency between TF and WSDL  
::: <font color="blue"> 220 - Secure Transfer of JPEGs in XDS-I.b </font>
+
::: 220 - Secure Transfer of JPEGs in XDS-I.b  
  
 
* Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
 
* Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?

Revision as of 10:38, 12 July 2011

Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing of Images 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"?
Mostly. Open CPs:
187 - Clarify RAD-69 Response Expected Action for JPIP transfer syntaxes
216 - Resolve RetrieveImagingDocumentSet Action Inconsistency between TF and WSDL
220 - Secure Transfer of JPEGs in XDS-I.b
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
Several open CPs are feature additions. Significance depends on whether we want to make them required.
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
Yes.
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
Yes.
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
Yes. No issues

TC Conclusion

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. EU (2010, 2011) NA (2010, 2011)
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
Yes. EU (2010, 2011) NA (2010, 2011)
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
Yes.
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
Yes. (No options defined)
  • 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.
  • (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. Significant community interest.
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
(Discuss)
Yes.

PC Conclusion