metamodeling forms a study period report denise warzel, ncicbiit jim davies, charles crichton,...
TRANSCRIPT
metamodeling forms
a study period reportDenise Warzel, NCICBIIT
Jim Davies, Charles Crichton, Andrew Tsui, James Welch,Steve Harris* Department of Computer Science, Oxford
Daniel Abler, CERN
agenda
• why might we need one• what instances already exist• what are their common features• what one might look like• what would be its scope • where do we go next
motivation
• specification– I want this data to be collected
• interoperability– we should be collecting this data– we have collected this kind of data before
• documentation– this is how this data was collected– no, this is what this data means
motivation …
• discovery and reuse – of data
• was any data like this collected?
– of form designs • can I save some time here?• is there some way of collecting this kind of data that is validated?
• model driven software engineering – I need to guarantee that my system collects the data I have
described– I need bespoke functionality, not bespoke software– I want my software to be more general
examples – in paper
• euro QoL• TCGA follow-up form (NCI, partial specification)• business process templates
examples - electronic
• open clinica/redcap• slot extensions in EAP software• caDSR• CDISC ODM• HL7 CDA• DDI 3.x
Field static field runtime control logicpresentation
Exception handling re-use User management other
Field definitions (Questions,
Value domain)
Selection of items from
value domain
(one, multiple, number)
arbitrary field
annotation
data constraints/validation
pre-population
of data fields
skip logic execution order
including graphics*/multimedia
**
for validation
can value pairs be
specified by look-up,
e.g. web-service?
elements are
versionable
Form roles* / fine
grained user access control**
attributing users to set
of user
configurable form level metadata
audit record signature
all have some some way of expressing multiplicity of fields//tables, most have
multilanguage support, 'mandatory' flag for fields.
all have grouping
none of the models
allows to specify
accessibility options like
voice or braille
none of the models
provides discrepancy manageme
nt that is configurable through
model
all form elements
are referencable, at least internally
none has (clearly
defined) form roles
or fine grained
user access control, ,
not possible to attribute
users to different
sets
Documentation
CDISC-ODM y ? ?*y*/n**/?*** ?*/?** y y*"/y** ?*/n** y some y ?*/n** n n y y
DDI y ? ?*?*/?**/?*** ?*/?** y ?*/n** ?*/y** n n y ?*/n** ? n ? ?
eDCI y n y*/n**/n*** n*/n** n y*/n** y*/n** n n n n*/n** n n n n
Generation
OpenClinica y y ny*/?**/n*** y*/n** y y*"/n** n*/n** y n n n*/n** n n n n
RedCap ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*/?** ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
CancerGrid y n nn*/n**/n*** n*/n** y n*^/n** n*/n** n n n n*/n** n n n n
caBig Forms y n nn*/n**/n*** n*/n** n n*^/n** n*/n** n n y n*/n** n n n n
* = provide some annotation capabilitiy, e.g. concept reference, external code list; but not arbitrary
* = for single field
* = fixed value
* = form elements within forms
** = computed across fields
** = computed from fields
** = forms within study
metamodel elements
• identification• static structure and mapping• validation• control logic/flow
metamodel elements - structure
• questions– typing– instruction text– their relationship to data elements
• sections– their relationships to other sections on other
forms• the container– essential annotation of scope
metamodel elements - validation
• field-level data checking logic– narrows typing information from ISO11179– account for dependencies (scope?)
• default values
metamodel elements - flow
• ordering• paging• skip logic
• to what extent is style in scope?
administered item
terminology data elementsvalue domains models
17
scope
• not a data model or a workflow model– although clearly related
• not an implementation– although it has to encompass XForms, webforms, JSF,
ASP.NET forms …
• maybe has elements of a meta-standard– may specify constraints on DSLs for validation/flow
control/skip logic/workflow
scope …
• will describe how to specialise ISO/IEC11179 data elements into questions
• will specialise ISO/IEC19763 – is it simply another component standard of the family
• will reuse administration modeling from this workgroup
next steps
• approval to begin turning the research into a standard
• advice on how the standard is structured and presented– abstract or concrete metamodel?– multipart?– specification + guidance notes?