An official standard reference

[Віталій Омельченко]

Hi everyone!

I've just noticed that Innolitics claims that "the most recent PDF version of the standard is the official reference and should be checked when making technical decisions" (you can see this in a footer).

It made me think about a tricky question: which standard representation is "golden" and should be used as a reference? I know of three of them: PDF, XML, and HTML. I usually use HTML as a human-readable DICOM standard reference. Sometimes I use the XML version for some automation. Are they reliable, or is the only "true" reference the PDF version?

Sincerely,
Vitaliy

[Hervé Garfagni]

Hello Vitaliy
The official source for DICOM Current Edition is:  Current Edition.
Regards,

Hervé.

[Jouke Numan]

Hi Vitali,

From what I know, the pdf, (c)html, docx and odt are all generated from the xml. 

If you look at the url's the first are in the 'output' folder structure and the xml in the 'source' folder structure. 

From this, you could say that xml is a little bit more "golden" as it is the primary and the others secondary.

As this distinction is only relevant in cases where a failure happened during generation of the output, and NEMA itself is not identifying any version as the standard in the page referenced by Herve, I think it is for all practical intents and purposes ok to refer any of these human-readable formats as "golden"/"authorative".

I agree with you that  it would be good if someone from NEMA conclusively answers your question. 

Even better would be if that answer is added to the Current Edition page...

Regards, Jouke

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DICOM Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dicomforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dicomforum/f13a6343-eb24-422a-8ff8-bf5e568c27adn%40googlegroups.com.

[Jörg Riesmeier]

Hi Jouke and others,

>> From what I know, the pdf, (c)html, docx and odt are all generated from the
>> xml.

that's correct. As the official release notes [1] of the DICOM Standard state:
"The DocBook XML files are the source format, and all other formats are
rendered from it." Furthermore, "The PDF format is rendered from the DocBook
XML, and remains the "official" (authoritative) form of the standard." That
means, in case of deviations or inconsistencies, the PDF version is the
relevant one. So, I personally, always use the PDF version for as _the_
reference.

[1] https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/pdf/
releasenotes_2025b.pdf

By the way, the release notes also state: "The DOCX (for Word) and ODT (for
OpenOffice or LibreOffice) formats are provided for the convenience of future
Supplement andCP editors. Their main claim to fame is that they exist at all,
and though they are viewable and editable, they are lacking many features of
the Word source of previous release, for example the use of styles for section
headings. [...]"

> I agree with you that it would be good if someone from NEMA conclusively
> answers your question.

I am not from NEMA, but the above statement are from the official release notes
of the DICOM Standard (latest release).

> Even better would be if that answer is added to the Current Edition page...

Maybe, you should send this proposal to the DICOM secretariat, i.e. Shayna:
https://www.dicomstandard.org/secretariat

Regards,
Jörg
--
Dr. Joerg Riesmeier, Etzhorner Weg 19, 26125 Oldenburg, Germany
E-Mail: di...@jriesmeier.com, Homepage: www.jriesmeier.com

[Віталій Омельченко]

Thank you for your answers! I had an assumption that some formats are generated from one initial file as you mentioned, but I did not find approval of this hypothesis. Thank you again for your help! 

вівторок, 22 квітня 2025 р. о 19:29:59 UTC+3 Jörg Riesmeier пише: