It's not clear to me at this point what standardizing on an i2b2 version gets us. As far as I can tell, we can get our cohort characterization job done even though we run different i2b2 versions at different sites. I certainly loaded terminologies from 1.5 and 1.6 into babel which runs 1.7 straightforwardly.
If someone can think of a specific reason related to ALS, breast cancer, or obesity cohort characterization that requires that we all use the same I2B2 version, let's refine #27<http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/27> to focus on that issue and put it where it belongs in the milestones. Maybe the specific issue regards later work on running trials, but if you can see any technical details that far in the future, you're doing much better than I am. -- Dan ________________________________ From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [[email protected]] on behalf of Tom Mish [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: optional columns in i2b2 dimension tables RE: Minutes of GPV-DEV call 20140128 Great discussion all... [...] PS: I'd second the idea of standardizing on v1.6 as proposed by Phillip. On 2/4/2014 9:57 AM, Phillip Reeder wrote: [...] I'd like to propose that we standardize on i2b2 1.6. From what I remember, 1.6 seemed to already be running at the majority of the sites. For those with 1.5 or previous, the data should be able to work in version 1.6, they just won't have modifiers. From there, I think we can start deciding what we want to standardize across sites (Demographics, Diagnoses, etc.) and can start deciding if we want to add/remove columns from various dimensions, query on the fact table only, or just query on dimension tables, etc..
