XDS-I.b FT Evaluation
Cross-enterprise Document Sharing 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.
- 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.
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- Yes. There are no outstanding CPs against XDS.b in ITI.
- Lynn summarized some completed CPs in ITI
- The XDS.b Async Option was evaluated in the Tech Cmte and found to be compatible with imaging data
- Three ITI supplements adding actors/options to XDS.b are in TI. We can final text XDS-I.b now and if the Tech Cmtes find there is anything that needs to be added/changed to make those compatible with imaging data, we can submit CPs against the ITI Supplements before they go to Final Text.
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Have all open issues in the Supplement been closed
- The open issue in the TI draft involving multi-100MB datasets was examined at the connectathon and demo. Cmte members report that multi-100MB datasets were tested and worked (although it was a bit slow). It was felt that the async option and/or using smaller sets addressed the concern and the issue could be closed.
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- Yes. No issues
- Motion: Recommend to Planning Committee to advance final text.
- Carried unanimously.
- 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?
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes. (Text, DICOM, PDF)
- 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?
- (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. Canada, as an example has implemented for several jurisdictions. Product availability is 38 plus.
- 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
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
Planning Committee approved for Final Text - Rad Plan Minutes 2011-08-12