[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#793392: ITP: dcmtkpp -- Wrappers around DCMTK to have an easier API



Julien Lamy <lamy@unistra.fr> writes:

> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Debian Med team <debian-med@lists.debian.org>
>
> * Package name    : dcmtkpp
>   Version         : 0.2.1
>   Upstream Author : Julien Lamy <lamy@unistra.fr>
> * URL             : https://github.com/lamyj/dcmtkpp
> * License         : CeCILL-B
>   Programming Lang: C++
>   Description     : Wrappers around DCMTK to have an easier API
>
> DCMTK++ is a set of wrappers around DCMTK, leveraging C++ constructs to have 
> an easier API, notably for the networking part. Included are exception-based
> error handling, generic access to datasets elements, standard JSON 
> representation of datasets, explicit messages and generic implementation of
> SCU and SCP.

Some indication of what field of endeavour this package might be of
interest to would be helpful.

It seems, after some searching, that DCMTK is an acronym encompassing the
acronym DICOM, which is something to do with medical imaging.

Medical imagining is a minority interest, so it would be good if the
short description allowed the majority of people to quickly determine
that they don't need this.

Something like:  C++ library for dealing with DICOM medical imagery

You should also make sure that you either expand acronyms (if that
helps, or just make it obvious by context.

In this case I don't think 'Service Class User' and 'Service Class Provider'
add much in the way of clarity, so I'd suggest something along the lines
of:

  ... implementation of both client (SCU) and server (SCP) elements of
  the DICOM protocol.

I'm sure you can do better that that, being familiar with the meanings of
these things.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: