Wide MAPPING table (in vocabulary) (problems with relationship)

[Alexdavv (Alexander Davydov)]

@MaximMoinat

For handling numeric values, I propose to introduce a ‘value_type’ column that describes where the (mapped) value would end up.

Is it just for numeric values or the entire structure of the MAPPING table?

If you have 2 elements in the source data (numeric result + its interpretation), you’d probably want to preserve both in one CDM record using value_as_number + value_as_concept_id. Here is the discussion. There are also many cases when value_as_string is used as an additional piece of information stored.

Also @MaximMoinat pointed out that we don’t have a source_concept_id field. To make the links performing, we need to add it (as we do in the concept_relationship). Source_to_concept_map approach (source_code/vocabulary_id combination) doesn’t seem to be an option since it’s not unique for some vocabularies.

@Alexdavv

It’s still not clear how to handle this numeric stuff (\d+.?\d*).

This is also an open question. As far as I get it, the MAPPING table should be a guide for ETL, providing machine-readable instruction on how and where to extract the numeric value from. As well as differentiate the cases when there is no need to extract them (NULL numeric field).