Difference between revisions of "DBT FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
 
== Planning Committee Checklist ==
 
== Planning Committee Checklist ==
  
−
The Planning Committee votes on the Tech Cmte proposal to Final Text the supplement.
+
* Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
−
 
+
::: [Antje] Yes (NA 2015 and 2016, and EU 2015 and 2016)
−
* Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
+
* Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
−
** Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
+
::: [Antje] All major actors (Acquisition Modalities, Image Displays and Image Manager/Archives) have been tested. However Evidence Creators, Print Composers and Servers have not been tested
−
** 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
+
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
−
* Run down the following checklist for each proposed supplement
+
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
−
** Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
+
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
−
:: [Antje] Yes (NA 2015 and 2016, and EU 2015 and 2016)
+
* Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
−
** Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
+
* (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?)
−
:: [Antje] All major actors (Acquisition Modalities, Image Displays and Image Manager/Archives) have been tested. However Evidence Creators, Print Composers and Servers have not been tested
+
* Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
−
** Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
+
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
−
** Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
+
:::[Antje] Yes, see [[http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Digital_Breast_Tomosynthesis]]
−
** Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
 
−
** 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?)
 
−
** Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
 
−
** Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
 
−
* Debate checklist exceptions (failure of any of the above is cause for discussion)
 
−
* Record checklist findings and conclusions of the debate in your meeting minutes
 
−
* Hold and record formal vote
 
−
* Communicate results to TC
 

Revision as of 06:12, 4 May 2016

Proposal

The Digital Breast Tomosynthesis profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Antje Schroeder) Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

Technical Committee Checklist

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
[Antje] There are no open DBT CPs
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
[Antje] There are no DBT related CPs in DICOM
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
[Antje] Yes
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
The first open issue can be closed, the supplement is aligned with DICOM CP 1342
Open issue 2 (Should Evidence Creators particiapte in the For Processing Breast Projection X-Ray Images Option) is still open, but I would recommend to close with any further action, since no feedback was received regarding this topic
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
[Antje] After checking with Lynn Felhofer and David Clunie, no issues have been raised at the Connectathon.
[Antje] See above
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
[Antje] See above

Technical Committee Consensus

Planning Committee Checklist

  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
[Antje] Yes (NA 2015 and 2016, and EU 2015 and 2016)
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
[Antje] All major actors (Acquisition Modalities, Image Displays and Image Manager/Archives) have been tested. However Evidence Creators, Print Composers and Servers have not been tested
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
  • 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?)
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
[Antje] Yes, see [[1]]
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=DBT_FT_Evaluation&oldid=94402"