2 Responses to “The Version Management Wave”

Comments

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Nice blog post Dave. New versions of standards. And parallel standards as studies starts at different times from different versions. So, what can we learn in standards and metadata management from how code is being version managed and configured? Should we “branch, fork, fetch, merge, rebase, clone, commit” clinical data standards in the same way as code developers do on git/github, Google Code etc.?

  2. Simon Bishop

    Thanks, Dave, really important points.
    CDISC consumers do need to handle these versionning issues. I don’t think that will ever be easy. But it needs to be easier.
    When standards are created, whether “big” like the new asthma standards, or “small” like a single codelist, there does need to be rapid follow up to fill the gaps. So, for asthma, CDISC need to solicit feedback from the whole community to identify additional tests and the like so that the standard can be extended to include these. So far as the pulmonary function tests are concerned, it should be very easy and quick to identify those that are missing and to add them. Incomplete standards are a pain … users flesh out the standard with their own content, then have to backtrack when eventually the industry standard is updated. The same occurs with terminology e.g. the lab parameter terminology which years after first creation doesn’t contain all the parameters that my company need.

Leave A Comment...