Stream: committers
Topic: ImagingStudy
Grahame Grieve (Nov 26 2018 at 09:41):
@John Moehrke @Elliot Silver I do not understand the type / binding on ImagingStudy.series.performer.function - if it's a required binding, why is not a code type?
Grahame Grieve (Nov 26 2018 at 09:48):
also, imagingStudy.status has the codes of registered | available | cancelled | entered-in-error | unknown
Grahame Grieve (Nov 26 2018 at 09:49):
if it's offline,what status should it have? Looks like a status is missing
John Moehrke (Nov 26 2018 at 13:17):
I am thinking that the valueset should be identified as Extensible, not Required.
John Moehrke (Nov 26 2018 at 13:20):
for offline or near-line... agreed something needs to be said. Not sure what. I recall vaguely that that status is at a different level than the ImagingStudy.status.
John Moehrke (Nov 26 2018 at 14:49):
@Brad Genereaux
Elliot Silver (Nov 26 2018 at 14:56):
Yes, I noticed that issue a couple of days ago. The issue is that the DICOM source can only map those three functions, and ImagingStudy is designed to represent the DICOM data—other info would be in the associated Procedure. However, I’m ok with extensible. If someone wants to put something in there that DICOM can’t handle, well that’s their choice.
Elliot Silver (Nov 26 2018 at 15:00):
The status of the ImagingStudy is distinct from the status of the images. Images may be on more than one archive. Some images in a study may be online while others offline. If you’re interested in whether an image is online, ask the archive you want to retrieve it from.
I’m open to discussing this, but I don’t think it needs to be for R4.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 27 2018 at 00:17):
so whether an image is offline or not is irrelevant to status, that's what I hear
Grahame Grieve (Nov 27 2018 at 00:18):
the performer function.... it feels wrong how it is to me. But I'm hearing that you don't feel it's urgent to fix in R4
Elliot Silver (Nov 27 2018 at 16:43):
I would be ok with you changing the binding to extensible for R4. I chatted with @Brad Genereaux, and he’s good with that too. We don’t have an II call imminent, so if you want to change it as a technical correction (binding inconsistent with data type), we can do whatever is needed to ratify later.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
