Unknown Tags Question - DICOM

This is a discussion on Unknown Tags Question - DICOM ; The American Dental Association released a document entitled "Technical Report 1023" in which they define the "Implementation Requirements for DICOM in Dentistry". In this report (page 12) it refers to two tags: Detector manufacturer name (0018, 702A) P Name of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Unknown Tags Question

  1. Unknown Tags Question

    The American Dental Association released a document entitled "Technical
    Report 1023" in which they define the "Implementation Requirements for
    DICOM in Dentistry". In this report (page 12) it refers to two tags:

    Detector manufacturer name (0018, 702A) P Name of the manufacturer of
    the detector component of the acquisition system.

    Detector manufacturer's model number (0018, 702B) P Model name of the
    detector component of the acquisition system.

    The two tags (0018,702A) and (0018,702B) don't seem to be in the DICOM
    standard anywhere I can find. If they are proprietary tags, then the
    group number should be odd. If they are not proprietary, then they must
    be coming out in a new version of the standard, or perhaps in some
    technical note that I don't yet have.

    In order to implement these tags (assuming all is kosher here and I'm
    just missing a document) I need to know the VR's. Does anyone know
    where I could get this information?

    -Kelly


  2. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    Please look at PS3.6 Page 25:
    (0018,702A) VR: LO VM:1;
    (0018,702B) VR:LO VM:1;


  3. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > The American Dental Association released a document entitled "Technical
    > Report 1023" in which they define the "Implementation Requirements for
    > DICOM in Dentistry". In this report (page 12) it refers to two tags:
    >
    > Detector manufacturer name (0018, 702A) P Name of the manufacturer of
    > the detector component of the acquisition system.
    >
    > Detector manufacturer's model number (0018, 702B) P Model name of the
    > detector component of the acquisition system.
    >

    Have a look at
    ftp://medical.nema.org/dicom/2004/04_06PU.PDF
    (por, quicker : google 0018, 702A)

    HTH

    Jean-Pierre

    > The two tags (0018,702A) and (0018,702B) don't seem to be in the DICOM
    > standard anywhere I can find. If they are proprietary tags, then the
    > group number should be odd. If they are not proprietary, then they must
    > be coming out in a new version of the standard, or perhaps in some
    > technical note that I don't yet have.
    >
    > In order to implement these tags (assuming all is kosher here and I'm
    > just missing a document) I need to know the VR's. Does anyone know
    > where I could get this information?
    >
    > -Kelly
    >


  4. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > The American Dental Association released a document entitled "Technical
    > Report 1023" in which they define the "Implementation Requirements for
    > DICOM in Dentistry". In this report (page 12) it refers to two tags:
    >
    > Detector manufacturer name (0018, 702A) P Name of the manufacturer of
    > the detector component of the acquisition system.
    >
    > Detector manufacturer's model number (0018, 702B) P Model name of the
    > detector component of the acquisition system.
    >

    Hi, Kelly
    Have a look at
    ftp://medical.nema.org/dicom/2004/04_06PU.PDF
    (por, quicker : google 0018, 702A)

    HTH

    Jean-Pierre

    > The two tags (0018,702A) and (0018,702B) don't seem to be in the DICOM
    > standard anywhere I can find. If they are proprietary tags, then the
    > group number should be odd. If they are not proprietary, then they must
    > be coming out in a new version of the standard, or perhaps in some
    > technical note that I don't yet have.
    >
    > In order to implement these tags (assuming all is kosher here and I'm
    > just missing a document) I need to know the VR's. Does anyone know
    > where I could get this information?
    >
    > -Kelly
    >


  5. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    Thanks for the pointer, I guess I have the 2003 documents.

    By the way, the ftp site seems to have been slightly reorganized, the
    files seem to be here now:
    ftp://medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Dicom/2004/

    although I'm not sure at this point what the differences are between
    the "03v04dif" directory and the "printed" directory... maybe the dif
    is a redline version showing the edits?

    -Kelly


    Jean-Pierre Roux wrote:
    > kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > > The American Dental Association released a document entitled "Technical
    > > Report 1023" in which they define the "Implementation Requirements for
    > > DICOM in Dentistry". In this report (page 12) it refers to two tags:
    > >
    > > Detector manufacturer name (0018, 702A) P Name of the manufacturer of
    > > the detector component of the acquisition system.
    > >
    > > Detector manufacturer's model number (0018, 702B) P Model name of the
    > > detector component of the acquisition system.
    > >

    > Hi, Kelly
    > Have a look at
    > ftp://medical.nema.org/dicom/2004/04_06PU.PDF
    > (por, quicker : google 0018, 702A)
    >
    > HTH
    >
    > Jean-Pierre
    >
    > > The two tags (0018,702A) and (0018,702B) don't seem to be in the DICOM
    > > standard anywhere I can find. If they are proprietary tags, then the
    > > group number should be odd. If they are not proprietary, then they must
    > > be coming out in a new version of the standard, or perhaps in some
    > > technical note that I don't yet have.
    > >
    > > In order to implement these tags (assuming all is kosher here and I'm
    > > just missing a document) I need to know the VR's. Does anyone know
    > > where I could get this information?
    > >
    > > -Kelly
    > >



  6. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > Thanks for the pointer, I guess I have the 2003 documents.
    >
    > By the way, the ftp site seems to have been slightly reorganized, the
    > files seem to be here now:
    > ftp://medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Dicom/2004/
    >
    > although I'm not sure at this point what the differences are between
    > the "03v04dif" directory and the "printed" directory... maybe the dif
    > is a redline version showing the edits?
    >
    > -Kelly


    The 03c04dif contains the pdf files with the differences between the
    2004 and 2003 version of the Standard. This is useful for people
    already knowing well the old version, of course: the freshmen should
    just look to the "printed" version (that is, the version that is used
    to produce the printed copies of the standard, that can be ordered from
    NEMA).

    But I strongly suggest to access the standard documents, instead than
    directly from the ftp NEMA site, using the web site of Dr. Clunie, in
    particular the page

    http://www.dclunie.com/dicom-status/status.html

    It is important to understand that DICOM is a standard that evolves
    almost every few weeks: between the current version of the documents
    (2004) and the next one, as always, the standard has been (and will be)
    modified many times, by approving new Supplements (see section "Final
    Text Supplements additional to 2004 Base Standard") and corrections
    (see section "Final Text Correction Items additional to 2004 Base
    Standard"). This means that the _complete_ standard, today, is made by
    the 2004 edition ("printed" directory) _plus_ the above supplements and
    corrections, that can be accessed from the above page. When a new
    version will be issued (in 2005 or 2006), all the approved supplements
    and corrections will be incorporated in it, and the process will start
    again.

    Regards.

    Luigi P.B.
    mailto:luigi.pampana@REMOVETHIS.esaote.com


  7. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    Thanks for the detailed description Luigi. I guess it's just that at
    some point you have to put a stake in the ground and say "This is the
    version I'm implementing"... I guess I just didn't put the stake close
    enough because when I started I was given a copy of the 2003 spec, and
    was unaware of how quickly things can change in the DICOM world.

    -Kelly

    luigipb@hotmail.com wrote:
    > kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > It is important to understand that DICOM is a standard that evolves
    > almost every few weeks



  8. Re: Unknown Tags Question

    kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > Thanks for the detailed description Luigi. I guess it's just that at
    > some point you have to put a stake in the ground and say "This is the
    > version I'm implementing"... I guess I just didn't put the stake close
    > enough because when I started I was given a copy of the 2003 spec, and
    > was unaware of how quickly things can change in the DICOM world.


    It is true that the things, in DICOM, change quickly, but only in an
    "additive" way. Let me make an example using a given Storage SOP Class:
    no new mandatory attributes are ever added to an existing SOP Class, so
    you are sure your software will never start violating the standard in
    the future. For example, the attributes you mentioned are Type 3.

    Of course, if some other organization (like IHE, or the American Dental
    Association) decide to suggest (or make mandatory) the usage of some
    optional attribute, this is another matter.

    As far as DICOM itself is concerned, in case people need to make
    mandatory some existing or new attributes, a brand new Storage SOP
    Class will be created, including them. You will be free to implement
    it, or the old one, or both, according to the market request.

    This is what happened with the new Enhanced MR and CT (multiframe)
    Storage SOP Classes: perhaps in some year the old MR and CT Storage SOP
    classes will never be implemented anymore, but not because the Standard
    Committee made them obsolete, just because the market will not request
    them anymore, preferring the new ones.

    Very seldom, something was "retired" from the Standard, but only when
    really nobody implemented it.

    Regards.

    Luigi Pampana-Biancheri
    mailto:luigi.pampana@REMOVETHIS.esaote.com


+ Reply to Thread