Difference between revisions of "XDS-I.b FT Evaluation"
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 | ||
| − | ::: | + | ::: 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"? | * Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"? | ||
Revision as of 11:38, 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
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- 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)
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes.