Re: How do you go about versioning ?

Hi Kerstin,
/(sl//ightly diverging from the subject of this tread)/
I am not sure which data standards will you cover in the registry and 
wonder if there is a opportunity for collaboration. You may be familiar 
with http://www.biosharing.org/ where registering data/metadata 
reporting standards is core; this work is embedded both into elixir 
activities, IMI eTRIKS, the new NIH CEDAR centre and RDA (we have a 
working group with publishers, see: 
https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/case_statement/BioSharing_RDA_WG_case_satement_submitted_8Aug2014.pdf) 
to help stakeholders to make informed decisions on coverage, use and 
popularity of these reporting standards. Want you may need could be 
complementary to what we do/aim to do, but happy to discuss options for 
collaborations.
Thanks,
Susanna


On 21/09/2014 12:49, Kerstin Forsberg wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
> in an earlier attempt to design and launch a Metadata Registry for 
> clinical trial data, called Clinical Reference Library1 ). To capture 
> and manage descriptions of versions of clinical trial data standards, 
> and of variants of actual clinical trial datasets, we applied the 
> software pattern called Facade 2). We used it to manage variants of 
> metadata items on different gramualrity (e.g. data element, value 
> domain, datasets) within a shared facade. It required a strong 
> configuration management approach and hence an standard enginering 
> approach similar as to software engineering.
>
> Cheers
> Kerstin
>
> 1) 
> http://www.slideshare.net/kerfors/designing-and-launching-the-clinical-reference-library 
> (slide 2 highlights the Realities of clinical trials data: the 
> variances, changes, diversities and gaps)
> 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facade_pattern
>
>
> 2014-09-21 12:21 GMT+02:00 Andrea Splendiani 
> <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org <mailto:andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I may re-use some bits of it, but overall I am dealing with quite
>     a different thing.
>     I don't have "publications", I have evolving information sets.
>     Provenance/evidence and the like are there, but not so
>     fine-grained (e.g.: I may have the whole ontology with the same
>     provenance/evidence, not a few statement). In same case (small
>     subset) I have some more fine-grained information. In this case I
>     may pickup something from nanopubs, though I have a string focus
>     on capturing evolution of knowledge rather than "facts" (e.g.:
>     some facts gets validated).
>     There is also an are I don't know how to fit in, from the nanopubs
>     point of view, because facts come with a history of discussion behind.
>     Another aspect that I think it's different is, whatever I have,
>     it's id centric, and entity centric in the specific (like a
>     dictionary).
>     So identifiers (and the relations between identifiers and
>     identifiers of versions) comes first.
>
>     best,
>     Andrea
>
>
>     Il giorno 19/set/2014, alle ore 20:07, Michel Dumontier
>     <michel.dumontier@gmail.com <mailto:michel.dumontier@gmail.com>>
>     ha scritto:
>
>     > Hi,
>     > I suggest nanopublications to track versioning for assertions
>     > http://www.nanopub.org/guidelines/
>     >
>     > m.
>     >
>     > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Joachim Baran
>     <joachim.baran@gmail.com <mailto:joachim.baran@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >> Hi!
>     >>
>     >> On 19 September 2014 09:45, Andrea Splendiani
>     <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org <mailto:andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> When a concept change meaning, it changes id ;)
>     >>
>     >>  Aha! I think it might not always change ID! ;)
>     >>
>     >> Best wishes,
>     >>
>     >> Kim
>
>
>

-- 
Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
uk.linkedin.com/in/sasansone

University of Oxford e-Research Centre
  Associate Director and PI
  isacommons.org | biosharing.org

Nature Publishing Group
  Consultant, Scientific Data
  nature.com/scientificdata
--