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.splendi...@iscb.org <mailto:andrea.splendi...@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.dumont...@gmail.com <mailto:michel.dumont...@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.ba...@gmail.com <mailto:joachim.ba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 19 September 2014 09:45, Andrea Splendiani
<andrea.splendi...@iscb.org <mailto:andrea.splendi...@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
--
