Added new SOP Class UID to DICOM Routing and created new profile and extension for

[hoodriverheather]

@nutjob4life The BCM validation report included errors caused by an unrecognized SOP Class UID:

1.2.840.10008.5.1.4.1.1.1 — Computed Radiography Image Storage

This SOP Class UID was identified in the BCM PDAC collection but was not included in the routing table.

In the EDRN Core DICOM Header Tags v1.0–v2.0, I:

• added a new cr profile to the SOP Class UID Routing table
• added cr_v1 and cr_v2 profiles to the Core DICOM Tags tab
• created a CR Extension tab
• documented the changes in the Change Log

The CR Extension includes this conditional exposure requirement:

Either both Exposure Time (0018,1150) and X-Ray Tube Current (0018,1151) must be populated, or Exposure (0018,1152) must be populated.

Please let me know how you would prefer this conditional rule to be represented in the requirements workbook and implemented in the validator.

[nutjob4life]

@hoodriverheather after working through the reports-issue-54-20260728.zip and finding a Generic profile in use and then correlating that with an actual file on the LabCAS disk, I found a file I could work with.

I have some questions:

Question 1

Laterality (0020,0060) is marked "R when applicable" — required only when paired anatomy is imaged, and the notes suggest conditioning on Body Part Examined. How should I determine applicability?

Some ideas:

• Option 🄐: Maintain a list of paired body parts (BREAST, HAND, KNEE, SHOULDER, etc.) and require Laterality only when BodyPartExamined matches? This sounds like a good option.
• Option 🄑: Treat Laterality as always optional (meaning "warning only") until we see more data
• Option 🄒: Require it always — fail if missing, regardless of body part

Question 2

ExposureTime, XRayTubeCurrent, and Exposure are marked R* with a combined rule: (ExposureTime AND XRayTubeCurrent) OR Exposure must be present as positive integers. When the combined rule fails, how should it be reported?

Some ideas:

• Option 🄐: One combined validator emitting a single finding (single report row) explaining the exposure requirement. I sort of prefer this one.
• Option 🄑: Multiple findings (multiple report rows) per missing/invalid tag
• Option 🄒: Treat it as separate validators; still makes multiple report rows but ignores the spreadsheet's combined-rule note.

Question 3

DistanceSourceToPatient "should normally be less than" DistanceSourceToDetector. Both are required positive values. Should I implement the cross-field consistency check, and how strictly?

Some ideas:

• Option 🄐: Yes, a warning (not a failure) when DistanceSourceToDetector ≥ DistanceSourceToPatient
• Option 🄑: Yes, a hard failure
• Option 🄒: No, no cross-check for now; just validate each as a positive number