Difference between Release and Version - DICOM

This is a discussion on Difference between Release and Version - DICOM ; Hi, There seems to be difference in "release" and "version". Is there any way you could look up the "release" of your version of DICOM? I am trying to get metadata in oracle and it is reporting following error. IMG-01002: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Difference between Release and Version

  1. Difference between Release and Version

    Hi,
    There seems to be difference in "release" and "version". Is
    there any way you could look up the "release" of your version of
    DICOM?

    I am trying to get metadata in oracle and it is reporting following
    error.


    IMG-01002: unsupported DICOM version

    Cause: The object header could not be parsed, possibly because the
    object header did not conform to the DICOM standard release 2003.

    Action: Use an object that conforms to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    Refer to the Oracle interMedia documentation for more information.


    We have stored the images in the oracle sucessfully and because we are
    unable to get metadata and the error specifies the diffrence between
    release no. which we are using and oracle supports ,I am trying to find
    the difference/relationship between "Version No." and "Release No."

    We only know that our images are of version 3.0 of Dicom AND don't know
    any release No. Are there any releases after release 2003 or before it
    ,having the version no. 3 or any other versions?
    If any body in the form can guide about version no's and releases I
    shall be very thankful to him.
    Pls. mail me at Pranabh.jain@mh.org.au

    Thanks and Regards
    Pranabh


  2. Re: Difference between Release and Version

    Hi Pranabh

    There is only one version of DICOM, that is 3.0; the version number
    never changes and is present only to distinguish DICOM from the old
    ACR-NEMA 1.0 and 2.0 standards.

    What constitutes the current standard is the most recently published
    version (currently 2006) + any corrections and supplements that have
    passed ballot and have been approved as final text.

    There is no identifier for any particular such release of the standard;
    i.e., there is only one and that is what is most current.

    It is specifically intended that people not claim support for any
    particular published version (2003, 2006, etc.), since whatever is
    current makes that obsolete. Rather they should explicitly list what
    they do support in their conformance statement, since no implementation
    is likely to contain everything in the standard, in terms of composite
    object storage, transfer syntaxes, services, etc., and applications that
    support the same SOP classes are expected to be inter-operable
    regardless of when the SOP class was added to DICOM.

    So, it is inappropriate for Oracle implementation to mention DICOM
    standard release 2003 - rather it should refer you to its conformance
    statement where it should list the SOP Classes supported.

    In your specific instance, what type of image object is Oracle having
    trouble with ? It could be bad and perhaps trigger this message for
    other reasons than not being a SOP Class that Oracle supports.

    Try running it through dciodvfy or similar, which will tell you what the
    SOP Class is and whether there is anything obvious wrong with the image.

    David

    pranabh.jain@mh.org.au wrote:
    > Hi,
    > There seems to be difference in "release" and "version". Is
    > there any way you could look up the "release" of your version of
    > DICOM?
    >
    > I am trying to get metadata in oracle and it is reporting following
    > error.
    >
    >
    > IMG-01002: unsupported DICOM version
    >
    > Cause: The object header could not be parsed, possibly because the
    > object header did not conform to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    >
    > Action: Use an object that conforms to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    > Refer to the Oracle interMedia documentation for more information.
    >
    >
    > We have stored the images in the oracle sucessfully and because we are
    > unable to get metadata and the error specifies the diffrence between
    > release no. which we are using and oracle supports ,I am trying to find
    > the difference/relationship between "Version No." and "Release No."
    >
    > We only know that our images are of version 3.0 of Dicom AND don't know
    > any release No. Are there any releases after release 2003 or before it
    > ,having the version no. 3 or any other versions?
    > If any body in the form can guide about version no's and releases I
    > shall be very thankful to him.
    > Pls. mail me at Pranabh.jain@mh.org.au
    >
    > Thanks and Regards
    > Pranabh
    >


  3. Re: Difference between Release and Version

    Hi David,
    Thanks for your support and the long explanation.It has
    certainly helped us a lot about DICOM versions and releases.

    Regards
    Pranabh

    David Clunie wrote:
    > Hi Pranabh
    >
    > There is only one version of DICOM, that is 3.0; the version number
    > never changes and is present only to distinguish DICOM from the old
    > ACR-NEMA 1.0 and 2.0 standards.
    >
    > What constitutes the current standard is the most recently published
    > version (currently 2006) + any corrections and supplements that have
    > passed ballot and have been approved as final text.
    >
    > There is no identifier for any particular such release of the standard;
    > i.e., there is only one and that is what is most current.
    >
    > It is specifically intended that people not claim support for any
    > particular published version (2003, 2006, etc.), since whatever is
    > current makes that obsolete. Rather they should explicitly list what
    > they do support in their conformance statement, since no implementation
    > is likely to contain everything in the standard, in terms of composite
    > object storage, transfer syntaxes, services, etc., and applications that
    > support the same SOP classes are expected to be inter-operable
    > regardless of when the SOP class was added to DICOM.
    >
    > So, it is inappropriate for Oracle implementation to mention DICOM
    > standard release 2003 - rather it should refer you to its conformance
    > statement where it should list the SOP Classes supported.
    >
    > In your specific instance, what type of image object is Oracle having
    > trouble with ? It could be bad and perhaps trigger this message for
    > other reasons than not being a SOP Class that Oracle supports.
    >
    > Try running it through dciodvfy or similar, which will tell you what the
    > SOP Class is and whether there is anything obvious wrong with the image.
    >
    > David
    >
    > pranabh.jain@mh.org.au wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > > There seems to be difference in "release" and "version". Is
    > > there any way you could look up the "release" of your version of
    > > DICOM?
    > >
    > > I am trying to get metadata in oracle and it is reporting following
    > > error.
    > >
    > >
    > > IMG-01002: unsupported DICOM version
    > >
    > > Cause: The object header could not be parsed, possibly because the
    > > object header did not conform to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    > >
    > > Action: Use an object that conforms to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    > > Refer to the Oracle interMedia documentation for more information.
    > >
    > >
    > > We have stored the images in the oracle sucessfully and because we are
    > > unable to get metadata and the error specifies the diffrence between
    > > release no. which we are using and oracle supports ,I am trying to find
    > > the difference/relationship between "Version No." and "Release No."
    > >
    > > We only know that our images are of version 3.0 of Dicom AND don't know
    > > any release No. Are there any releases after release 2003 or before it
    > > ,having the version no. 3 or any other versions?
    > > If any body in the form can guide about version no's and releases I
    > > shall be very thankful to him.
    > > Pls. mail me at Pranabh.jain@mh.org.au
    > >
    > > Thanks and Regards
    > > Pranabh
    > >



  4. Re: Difference between Release and Version

    Thank you David for the comment.
    Pranabh:
    I work for Oracle.
    Oracle's DICOM support is a database server side SDK, so we do not have
    a
    conformance statement. We expect third party software developers
    who build applications define such conformance statement.
    What we meant by that message was that we supported the DICOM
    object defined in the published standard as of year 2003.
    We will clarify the error messages in the next release.

    The newer Oracle release is in sync with the lastest published version
    of the DICOM standard.

    thank you.

    pranabh.jain@mh.org.au wrote:
    > Hi David,
    > Thanks for your support and the long explanation.It has
    > certainly helped us a lot about DICOM versions and releases.
    >
    > Regards
    > Pranabh
    >
    > David Clunie wrote:
    > > Hi Pranabh
    > >
    > > There is only one version of DICOM, that is 3.0; the version number
    > > never changes and is present only to distinguish DICOM from the old
    > > ACR-NEMA 1.0 and 2.0 standards.
    > >
    > > What constitutes the current standard is the most recently published
    > > version (currently 2006) + any corrections and supplements that have
    > > passed ballot and have been approved as final text.
    > >
    > > There is no identifier for any particular such release of the standard;
    > > i.e., there is only one and that is what is most current.
    > >
    > > It is specifically intended that people not claim support for any
    > > particular published version (2003, 2006, etc.), since whatever is
    > > current makes that obsolete. Rather they should explicitly list what
    > > they do support in their conformance statement, since no implementation
    > > is likely to contain everything in the standard, in terms of composite
    > > object storage, transfer syntaxes, services, etc., and applications that
    > > support the same SOP classes are expected to be inter-operable
    > > regardless of when the SOP class was added to DICOM.
    > >
    > > So, it is inappropriate for Oracle implementation to mention DICOM
    > > standard release 2003 - rather it should refer you to its conformance
    > > statement where it should list the SOP Classes supported.
    > >
    > > In your specific instance, what type of image object is Oracle having
    > > trouble with ? It could be bad and perhaps trigger this message for
    > > other reasons than not being a SOP Class that Oracle supports.
    > >
    > > Try running it through dciodvfy or similar, which will tell you what the
    > > SOP Class is and whether there is anything obvious wrong with the image.
    > >
    > > David
    > >
    > > pranabh.jain@mh.org.au wrote:
    > > > Hi,
    > > > There seems to be difference in "release" and "version". Is
    > > > there any way you could look up the "release" of your version of
    > > > DICOM?
    > > >
    > > > I am trying to get metadata in oracle and it is reporting following
    > > > error.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > IMG-01002: unsupported DICOM version
    > > >
    > > > Cause: The object header could not be parsed, possibly because the
    > > > object header did not conform to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    > > >
    > > > Action: Use an object that conforms to the DICOM standard release 2003.
    > > > Refer to the Oracle interMedia documentation for more information.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > We have stored the images in the oracle sucessfully and because we are
    > > > unable to get metadata and the error specifies the diffrence between
    > > > release no. which we are using and oracle supports ,I am trying to find
    > > > the difference/relationship between "Version No." and "Release No."
    > > >
    > > > We only know that our images are of version 3.0 of Dicom AND don't know
    > > > any release No. Are there any releases after release 2003 or before it
    > > > ,having the version no. 3 or any other versions?
    > > > If any body in the form can guide about version no's and releases I
    > > > shall be very thankful to him.
    > > > Pls. mail me at Pranabh.jain@mh.org.au
    > > >
    > > > Thanks and Regards
    > > > Pranabh
    > > >



+ Reply to Thread