Re: How do you go about versioning ?

Hi and Many Thanks Susanna for your email

The coverage for CRL was metadata describing prospective clinical data
standards, both public such as CDISC and internal such as raw data
standards for a specific clinical project, as well as descriptions of
retrospectiive datasets.The projejct was stopped a couple of years ago. For
many reasons, one was the lack of an people in the clinical trial domain
with an engineering approach to data standards and also challanges in the
creating a user interface to support complex configuration management.

I'm actively engaged in several other ISO11179 related intitatives: The IMI
EHR4CR project has build a data element editor. And in the FDA/PhUSE
Semantic Technology project we've create a small metamodel schema for data
elements to represent all CDISC standards as is in RDF
https://github.com/phuse-org/rdf.cdisc.org . And there's is a Data Element
Exchange (DEX) IHE profile
http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Data_Element_Exchange intative

I'm also trying to keep an eye on the RDF Shape dsicussions as the topic of
representing value sets seems, IMHO,  to be a shared issue across CDISC,
HL7 and others, see
http://kerfors.blogspot.se/2013/10/the-future-of-cdisc-cts.html

I think the versions/variants problem is a common issue, not yet addressed,
across all of these, Hence my response to Andrea's eamil

I would like to learn more about RDA's and related intitatives related to
this. I'll catch up on the material you linked to.

Thanks
Kerstin

I'm just now follwoing you and the others on the nice #RDAplenary tag on
Twitter :-)

2014-09-21 13:30 GMT+02:00 Susanna Sansone <sa.sansone@gmail.com>:

>  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>:
>
>> 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> 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>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> On 19 September 2014 09:45, Andrea Splendiani <
>> 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, PhDuk.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
> --
>
>