Closed matthewhorridge closed 11 months ago
Reference to the CDE should be required to be an identifier (an IRI/URL, since if it's a registered CDE it should have a unique identifier that is resolvable). Possibly that just the @id of the referenced item.
I think there's a useful pattern for the other provenance information in the DataCite description patterns, this is just a particular digital object that needs provenance. But I understand not everyone likes the DataCite description patterns.
The RADx-rad data dictionary has a "CDE Reference" column which is a list of values that is used in two ways:
Here are some examples (the origin is the first element, followed by zero or more references):
RADx-rad DCC|https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy
RADx-rad DCC|https://www.uniprot.org/
RADx-rad DCC|https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/overview-COVID-19-vaccines.html?s_cid=11758:covid%20vaccine%20brands:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY22
Since the CDE Reference field is used for two related but different purposes, one could consider splitting this into two fields.
@matthewhorridge you completed this issues with the new fields: Provenance and SeeAlso.
You can close this issue.
It's generally the case that each field in a data dictionary corresponds to a Common Data Element (CDE). We need some extra columns to provide a reference to the CDE, the source of the CDE etc.
Cc @pwrose and @graybeal