Open nhaydel opened 1 year ago
We need a comment from @nickdedonder regarding why this should or shouldn't be a priority. We don't know what to do with this and I am moving this back to the Product Backlog.
In the meeting, several key points were discussed regarding schema integration and customization. It was proposed to provide an option for users to link to a local custom schema, allowing them to use their own schema without disrupting the existing one, with URL schema switching as the suggested method. There was a concern that custom rules might lack certain properties or differ significantly from our schema, potentially causing compliance issues. Nick de Donder highlighted the need to expand the core schema to accommodate all types of data beyond just SDTM, suggesting the removal of existing limitations. However, it was noted that while adding information to the schema is acceptable, removing elements could lead to engine failures.
Gerry proposed marking custom rules and potentially adding datasets to a separate file, like cdisc_organization.json, for easier updates. He also suggested a union of the CDISC and custom schemas, allowing validation against either schema.
Finally, Nick de Donder mentioned creating tickets based on these discussions and suggested further deliberation during daily standups to refine the proposed changes.
This is still a priority. We need to finish the local rule writing portion of CORE and this is needed to make it so.
Acceptance Criteria