• Minor Question regarding Presentation Context Table within CS

    From madMorty@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 3 23:22:08 2021
    Hi all,
    I am wondering, given the case of an EXAMPLE-Modality that is used as an Worklist-SCU but proposes the two supported Transfer Syntaxes (LEE & LEI) within two separate Presentation Contexts (1 & 3), if the Presentation Context Table in that case should
    explicitly state two rows with the same Abstract Syntax or just on row with a following text paragraph explaining that the modality will propose each Abstract/Transfer Syntax combination as its own Presentation Context?

    So actually the question boils down to if each row within the Presentation Context Table should strictly map to the Presentation Context IDs that the Modality proposes for that activity or not.

    How would you experts like to see the Table presented in that case?

    Best regards,
    Morty

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Riesmeier?=@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 4 23:22:53 2021
    Hi Morty,

    So actually the question boils down to if each row within the Presentation Context Table should strictly map to the Presentation Context IDs that the Modality proposes for that activity or not.
    How would you experts like to see the Table presented in that case?

    I think the DICOM standard is pretty clear in this regard (see PS3.2 Section A.4.2.1.3.1.2):
    http://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part02/sect_A.4.2.html#sect_A.4.2.1.3.1.2

    The structure and content of the "Proposed Presentation Contexts" table suggest that each proposed Presentation Context is described in a separate row.
    I have to admit though that a more explicit statement in the standard text would be helpful. On the other hand, Part 2 is currently being completely revised anyway (with Supplement 209).

    Regards,
    Jörg

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gunter zeilinger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 4 23:40:16 2021
    On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 8:22:55 AM UTC+2, Jörg Riesmeier wrote:
    Hi Morty,
    So actually the question boils down to if each row within the Presentation Context Table should strictly map to the Presentation Context IDs that the Modality proposes for that activity or not.
    How would you experts like to see the Table presented in that case?
    I think the DICOM standard is pretty clear in this regard (see PS3.2 Section A.4.2.1.3.1.2):
    http://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part02/sect_A.4.2.html#sect_A.4.2.1.3.1.2

    The structure and content of the "Proposed Presentation Contexts" table suggest that each proposed Presentation Context is described in a separate row.
    I have to admit though that a more explicit statement in the standard text would be helpful. On the other hand, Part 2 is currently being completely revised anyway (with Supplement 209).

    Regards,
    Jörg

    Agreed. Just the last sentence in A.4.2.1.3.1.2 Proposed Presentation Contexts:

    "The implementation of the initiator shall document which Transfer Syntax will be chosen in case multiple Transfer Syntaxes are accepted during the Association Acceptance."

    is a bit misleading. Should be better changed to:

    "The implementation of the initiator shall document which Presentation Context will be chosen in case multiple Presentation Contexts with equal Abstract Syntax but different Transfer Syntax are accepted during the Association Acceptance."

    br, Gunter

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From madMorty@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 5 01:32:28 2021
    Hi Jörg & Gunter,
    thanks for your feedbacks.
    I agree after reading PS3.2 Section A.4.2.1.3.1.2 again that the standard is actually pretty clear about it and it makes sense considering that with separate rows the table clearly maps to the amount/way of Presentation Contexts proposed by this specific
    AE.
    I suppose pretty clear given the "Proposed Presentation Contexts" name.. (probably a lack of coffee on my side when reading it the first time).

    Regards,
    Morty

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From madMorty@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 5 03:11:30 2021
    Maybe a short follow up to my last statement:
    Would you agree that while each Presentation Context proposed by the AE is described in a separate row, the chronology of the rows do not have to match (do not map 1-to-1) the used Presentation Context IDs?

    Regards,
    Morty

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Riesmeier?=@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 5 10:50:11 2021
    Hi Morty,

    Would you agree that while each Presentation Context proposed by the AE is described in a separate row, the chronology of the rows do not have to match (do not map 1-to-1) the used Presentation Context IDs?

    I agree, DICOM PS3.2 is silent on this.

    Regards,
    Jörg

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)