My only concern with the SCHILS version is that it seems we are having to deviate from the core source that SCHILS released with Nathan's fork vs the SCHILS(https://github.com/SCILHS/i2p-transform). Hopefully the two version will merge back together to make it easier so that sites don't have to choose which version to start with.
Phillip From: Dan Connolly <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM To: "French, Tony" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: gpc_terms --> pcornet_terms mapping Bingo. Another way to look at it: development of SCILHS i2p-transform was informed by gpc-pcorenet-cdm and now we're converging. -- Dan ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of French, Tony [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:37 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: gpc_terms --> pcornet_terms mapping Just trying to follow the various threads... what are the differences between gpc-pcorenet-cdm and i2p-transform projects? Am I wrong in thinking that they are just two different approaches to converting the GPC i2b2 structure to the PCORNet CDM? Was the gpc-pcorenet-cdm approach taken by the majority of the sites for CDM v1 and v2 and then the SCHILS i2p-transform approach is being adopted as the primary approach for CDMv3? As a Phase 2 site, we started directly with the SCHILS transform approach with CDM v3 and I just want to verify that we are not missing something from gpc-pcorenet-cdm. -Tony ________________________________ UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
