W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hcls-dse@w3.org > January to February 2007

Re: draft template for Stephen's clinical data

From: Forsberg, Kerstin L <Kerstin.L.Forsberg@astrazeneca.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:39:53 +0100
Message-ID: <00EF518168DD14409AA8DB92601D87363C330A@SEMLRDEMBX02.rd.astrazeneca.net>
To: <public-hcls-dse@w3.org>

Hi Eric,
the first draft for the three kinds of observation data do raise a number of question in my head.

We assume a quite large CDISC vocabulary (http://www.cdisc.org/sdtm/vocab) that does not exist today. I think it is important that we think through how such a vocabulary should be constructed. Should we keep it close to the way CDISC today define their tabulation model, general observation classes and domain specific variable names that implies a flat file structure approach? Could be a good alternative if we would like to make our case stronger in our discussions with CDISC. Or, should we construct one or more ontologies that applies a more "semantic web approach" of observations as evolvable information resources instead? 

The integration of the time owl ontology makes good sense but I do get a bit confused on how it should be applied.

As discussed in the last TC, I think it is important that we include examples showing the value of having assigned URI:s for annotating clinical data, such as Adverse Event encoding using MedDRA codes. Instead of only using strings of texts.

With regards to the first question about the cdisc vocabulary / ontologies I will try to exemplify the two different options for our next TC. However, I may have to decline that TC on Friday due to a conflicting meeting.

Kind regards
Kersin
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 08:40:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:53 GMT