Vojtech - looked at how the proposal is shaping up and it looks fantastic, great progress. Here are my thoughts on this topic.
To enable seamless data and analysis design exchanges, including across multiple models, technologies and implementations, there are two models that need metadata - Data Model (OMOP CDM) and Business Process Model (Observational Study Model). I will comment on both.
The OMOP CDM data model is well described today, except for the metadata for the model and data set itself. which is what we are trying to tackle in this group
Arachne is heavily relying on the use of meta data for both process and data modes.
Here are some some additional possible metadata describing CDM model:
- ModelType: {OMOP, I2B2, Sentinel etc…}
- ModelVersion: {4, 5, 6 etc…}
- Revision: {1,2,3,4…}
- Organization: OHDSI
Some possible metadata for the Data Set:
- Data Type Included: {Claims, EHR, Survey, Registry, Lab, ClinicalTrial…}
- Vendor: QuintilesIMS, Truven, Optum, CPRD, CMS etc…
- Version (optional)
- Vocabulary Used: {}
- Vocabulary Version
- Last Updated Date
- Year Start
- Year End
An important point to add is that Arachne Data Catalog is also taking an advantage of Achilles generated stats to describe registred data sets.
Another very useful thing for us could be is to describe and agree on a common Business Process Model view, start with a simple conceptual model. Here are a few important examples:
- Study
- Cohort
- Concept and Concept Set
- Analysis
- Analysis Data Results
We should think about a set of common metadata elements for those…
…as well as element specific, deep, design related meta data, which ATLAS already is doing a good job generating today in their JSON