I am forwarding this from David Clunie

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Moo...@mir.wustl.edu

unread,
Jan 25, 2007, 5:56:53 PM1/25/07
to IHE...@rsna.org, dcl...@dclunie.com

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Results of validation with dciodvfy of central archive objects
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:58:40 -0500
> From: David Clunie <dcl...@dclunie.com>
> Reply-To: dcl...@dclunie.com
> To: ihe...@rsna.org
> CC: ihem...@rsna.org, ihe-c...@lists.acc.org
>
> Hi all
>
> Whilst I was at the connectathon I took the opportunity to
> run my validation tools on all the central archive objects,
> including images, presentation states, SRs, etc.
>
> Recognizing that the central archive contained all sorts
> of stuff that may or may not be ready for prime time, was
> deliberately corrupt for testing, may have been corrupted by
> passage through de-identifiers or image archives, or may actually
> be quite old and not a reflection of current product, and that
> the dciodvfy tool is by no means complete or perfect, and that
> for the formal test participants had the option of using other
> validators, the results are still interesting and perhaps more
> importantly, educational.
>
> Since there might be anxiety induced were I to distribute
> the report en mass or in any formal manner, I am not going
> to bulk email it or mount it on a server anywhere; however,
> anyone who wants the results is welcome to send me a personal
> email and I will pass them along.
>
> I would encourage in particular anyone who is a creator of SR
> objects or images that contain LUTs to take advantage of
> this, although many pretty ordinary images are encoded
> incorrectly as well. Furthermore, anybody who has a feature for
> de-identifying images needs to examine these results to
> see how not to corrupt otherwise valid IODs whilst doing it.
>
> I assume, by the way, that there is no disagreement about the
> fact that DICOM conformance is required for any object (or
> service for that matter), which uses DICOM, regardless of
> any specific aspect of conformance that may or may not be
> specifically called out in any particular IHE profile.
>
> David

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages