2 comments on “So Many To Choose From

  1. Pretty interesting stuff there Dave. I’ve not encountered the 25964 standard before so will have to bone up on that. I was pleased to hear that the BRIDG project is continuing anew, we haven’t heard a anything about it for a while. Well I’ll admit I’m not a fan of it, it does at least try to pull some of the concepts together. I’m sure you’re aware that the ODM specification is going out for review in the near future, I know Jozef would appreciate any feedback to make ODM 4.0 a better fit for “everything a sponsor might need”.

    One amendment is that you need to make is to change CDISC 2 RDF to PhUSE’s CDISC Foundational Standards in RDF project. CDISC 2 RDF was an earlier initiative that was superseded by the PhUSE project and the PhUSE Semantic Technologies group deserves the proper attribution for their work. In the spirit of full disclosure I speak as a member of the PhUSE Semantic Technologies group.

    1. Geoff

      First off, amended the reference to the PhUSE / CDISC work, thanks for that.

      Secondly, as for BRIDG, yeah, quite a few share the reservations. For the Research Concept work we need a framework to build the templates. BRIDG offers this. That said, BRIDG is going through difficult times, so if something else can perform that role then it can fill the need in that slot.

      And finally, ODM, I would like to see some sort of recursion at the Group or Item level (may be even both). At the Item level that would allow RCs to be represented in ODM. At the group level we could then relate RCs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *