Inconsistency in 2008 PS3.3: Modality = "FID" - DICOM

This is a discussion on Inconsistency in 2008 PS3.3: Modality = "FID" - DICOM ; Dear c.p.d., I found an inconsistency in the 2008 Standard: in the list of "Defined Terms" for Modality (PS3.3-2008 C.7.3.1.1) the term "FID" is missing, whereas in Table C.21.1-1 Modality (0008,0060) is described to be set to "FID". I stumbled ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Inconsistency in 2008 PS3.3: Modality = "FID"

  1. Inconsistency in 2008 PS3.3: Modality = "FID"

    Dear c.p.d.,

    I found an inconsistency in the 2008 Standard: in the list of "Defined
    Terms" for Modality (PS3.3-2008 C.7.3.1.1) the term "FID" is missing,
    whereas in Table C.21.1-1 Modality (0008,0060) is described to be set to
    "FID".

    I stumbled upon this when I checked a Fiducial Object with David's
    dciodvfy, it complained that "FID" is not a defined term. And I know
    that David's verifier is always correct :-)

    How is the procedure to get this fixed; as I am not a NEMA Member, who
    can write a CP for this?

    Regards,


    Peter

  2. Re: Inconsistency in 2008 PS3.3: Modality = "FID"

    Hi Peter

    Anybody can submit a CP - they do not have to be a NEMA or DICOM
    member.

    But in this case, I will just take care of it as an editorial change
    (and make the corresponding change to dciodvfy).

    David

    Peter B Schmidt wrote:
    > Dear c.p.d.,
    >
    > I found an inconsistency in the 2008 Standard: in the list of "Defined
    > Terms" for Modality (PS3.3-2008 C.7.3.1.1) the term "FID" is missing,
    > whereas in Table C.21.1-1 Modality (0008,0060) is described to be set to
    > "FID".
    >
    > I stumbled upon this when I checked a Fiducial Object with David's
    > dciodvfy, it complained that "FID" is not a defined term. And I know
    > that David's verifier is always correct :-)
    >
    > How is the procedure to get this fixed; as I am not a NEMA Member, who
    > can write a CP for this?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    > Peter


+ Reply to Thread