I believe there’s a dependency between the two. For example, if we were to handle the ‘rules of engagement’ by saying you should tag a record with an ‘application id’, then the definition of the CDM table will have to account for this to support this ‘rule of engagement’. However, we could also say that the CDM structure is what the structure is (the cohort table just has a cohort_id, but nothing else to denote ‘ownership’) then some external thing must exist to coordinate these cohort_ids between those systems. Could be cumbersome if there’s lots of different systems working against the same table, since they’d all have to come to agreement on identification.
Alternatively, if each system creates their own tables in their own schemas, then they don’t run the risk of clobbering each other, and they have the flexibility of creating the writable tables they need without the overhead of a CDM working group. This approach is the one WebAPI took, and perhaps ostensibly called the writable schema the ‘ohdsi results schema’, but perhaps this is a bit of an overreach since it’s plausible that other applications could be written to read the contents of a CDM and write those statistical results to their own results schema, and why woudln’t they have the right to call themselves the ‘results schema’? But since WebAPI was there first, it claimed that prize 