An update from the Chart Review WG call with @jon_duke and @Andrew: we reviewed the concept hierarchies, concepts, and DDL, and it was generally well received. The tables defined in the Google Doc would comprise a new metadata schema that would be separate from the CDM or Results schemas, but still reside within a CDM database. The usage of separate dimension tables for time validity, authorship, transactional logging, and value storage could lend itself to hosting a variety of data quality, ETL/design, data content, and source provenance information. We could even eventually bring Achilles (the original OHDSI metadata) results into this schema.
A key part of the discussion was about how the Metadata schema could host Chart Review data. We agreed that while this is a priority, we need to strike a balance between the goal of avoiding data redundancy in our ecosystem and the goal of allowing rapid development of new features. For the current Chart Review app, there's custom application tables that may not be a good fit with the Metadata schema at present, while there are others that could more seamlessly fold into the Metadata tables. For the former, the right schema may be the OHDSI Repository schema rather than the Metadata schema.
@jon_duke, to help evaluate more tangibly the intersection between your schema and the Metadata schema, could you share an export of some dummy data in your current schema? I'm curious to see how difficult it would be to land the results of the Chart Reviews into our current metadata schema design. In the meantime, I've begun working on an Authorship table API, as that was one of the key tables and web services you'd mentioned that could be leveraged by the Chart Review application straight away.
Lastly, I'd like to "poke the bear" a little and see if @razzaghih, @Andrew, @Vojtech_Huser, or @Frank have any feedback on the materials I described in the first post before our meeting tomorrow (8/17) at 2 pm est.