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

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 39: Line 39:
 
:: Yes. (No options defined)
 
:: Yes. (No options defined)
 
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
 
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
:: <font color="blue"> (Check with Lynn) </font>
+
:: No, no tools to validate content objects or radiology-specific transactions. NIST tools are used to validate XDS transactions.
 
* 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?
 
:: Yes.  
 
:: Yes.  
Line 45: Line 45:
 
:: Yes. Significant community interest.  
 
:: Yes. Significant community interest.  
 
* 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?
:: <font color="blue"> (Discuss) </font>
+
:: Open question about new capabilities to handle multi-modality procedures and association to respective reports
 
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
 
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
 
:: Yes.
 
:: Yes.
  
 
===PC Conclusion===
 
===PC Conclusion===

Revision as of 11:55, 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
187 & 220 are feature additions and not issues with the profile.
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
Yes.
  • 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 (2011) NA (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?
No, no tools to validate content objects or radiology-specific transactions. NIST tools are used to validate XDS transactions.
  • 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?
Open question about new capabilities to handle multi-modality procedures and association to respective reports
Yes.

PC Conclusion