• Type: Improvement
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Priority: Minor
    • None
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Component/s: General
    • None
    • Environment:

      Comment from Linked In

    • Hide

      Messaging is not part of the specification within this Charter. However, there already exists a standard for general purpose content exchange through the Oasis CMIS Standard. Regarding versioning, the TC will address this.

      Show
      Messaging is not part of the specification within this Charter. However, there already exists a standard for general purpose content exchange through the Oasis CMIS Standard. Regarding versioning, the TC will address this.
    • Hide

      When referencing versioning, there are two areas of versioning to consider; 1) document versioning and 2) content model versioning. Document versioning is addressed and resolved in Issue eTMF-4. Content model versioning applies to management of content model versions. Content model version numbering format will follow the MajorVersion.MinorVersion approach to Content Model Modifications, as outlined in the 2/17/14 meeting slides and minutes. The OASIS eTMF Standard will have a published content model that uses a version number specified as 1.0 or 1.1, etc. Organizations can create organization specific versions of their content model ontologies by using the W3C OWL2 standard tag, VersionInfo. Organization specific information can be added to a content model. Since we are using W3C OWL to model content models, W3C has built-in support for versioning systems through use of the VersionInfo tag. The content model version number will have a format of majorversion.minorversion.organizationversion, where organization version will incorporate the following text: organization domain name.[versioninfo]. For example, any leaf or element of the content model could contain the organization specific version number as follows: 1.2.pharmacorp.com.1
      In this case, the major version of the content model is 1, minor version is 2, and organization specific info for the content model is pharmacorp.com (domain name of the org), and 1, version one of this specific content model. Note that there can be additional dot-notation version numbers after the domain name to indicate versions of specific elements in the content model tree. Outside of the content model version numbering policies outlined above, Applications will determine how content model versioning will be managed and implemented

      Show
      When referencing versioning, there are two areas of versioning to consider; 1) document versioning and 2) content model versioning. Document versioning is addressed and resolved in Issue eTMF-4. Content model versioning applies to management of content model versions. Content model version numbering format will follow the MajorVersion.MinorVersion approach to Content Model Modifications, as outlined in the 2/17/14 meeting slides and minutes. The OASIS eTMF Standard will have a published content model that uses a version number specified as 1.0 or 1.1, etc. Organizations can create organization specific versions of their content model ontologies by using the W3C OWL2 standard tag, VersionInfo. Organization specific information can be added to a content model. Since we are using W3C OWL to model content models, W3C has built-in support for versioning systems through use of the VersionInfo tag. The content model version number will have a format of majorversion.minorversion.organizationversion, where organization version will incorporate the following text: organization domain name. [versioninfo] . For example, any leaf or element of the content model could contain the organization specific version number as follows: 1.2.pharmacorp.com.1 In this case, the major version of the content model is 1, minor version is 2, and organization specific info for the content model is pharmacorp.com (domain name of the org), and 1, version one of this specific content model. Note that there can be additional dot-notation version numbers after the domain name to indicate versions of specific elements in the content model tree. Outside of the content model version numbering policies outlined above, Applications will determine how content model versioning will be managed and implemented

      "Adding to what Michael says, I would encourage addressing the issues of whether exchanged messages are meant to be incremental or complete and stand-along. I would expect incremental messages such as used in the eCTD and RPS standards. That raises not only the issue of versioning, (of content and/or metadata such as Michael mentions) but other more complex issues familiar to people who have worked with eCTD/RPS. What if you need to logically delete a previously submitted document? Can you reclassify a document by assigning it to a different taxonomy element if it was incorrectly classified? Is there some idea or concept of a history of messages you would need to get a full picture of a specific TMF? Can content be shared among TMFS without duplication (again, a concept from eCTD/RPS)? There are a large number of such issues that must be addressed to produce a usable standard." - Kathie Clark, eTMF Product Manager at Wingspan Technology
      found in - http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=5161997&type=member&item=5793078168692731904&commentID=5793692195496157184&qid=dd39c552-88da-4680-a8e6-79ddd857f7c6&trk=groups_items_see_more-0-b-cmn#commentID_5793692195496157184

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jennifer Alpert Palchak (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: