Re: [dita-pharma] RE: More thinking about Pharmaceutical Documents and DITA: Maps versus Templates

["Joel Finkle" <Joel.Finkle@imagesolutions.com>]

I agree with you completely. If the tools provide a mechanism, that will probably be sufficient. However, I was  hoping for a tool independent way of creating such templates.

James Averback <averbacj@ls-integration-partners.com> wrote:

All,

I agree with Joel's specific concepts outlined below as being essential in
pharma documentation.

Having said that, I don't believe the capability of having content which is
optionally included, document specific or of a repeatable nature depends
upon the DITA standard or specifically on the concept of a topic map.

These capabilities are at least equally dependent upon the toolset with
which one generates each topic map.



As long as a topic map can be created for any single document, the question
then becomes what does one have to do in order to create the correct topic
map for the document in question.

I see this view as one that clearly must distinguish the topic map from the
more static concept of a traditional template as we have used for authoring
content in MS Word.



As I see it, there is still a need in DITA for libraries of commonly used
topic map components (or sub-maps) which can be dynamically combined to
generate the right instance of a topic map as needed.

In this way, there is consistency in the structure while allowing a dynamic
assembly of the specific structure needed for any given document.



Having put forth this view that topic maps are dynamically assembled, I
would also say in practice pharma documentation will "re-use" many topic
maps (of course with updated topic binding).

A key assumption here, if we are thinking about clinical studies, is that
while there are many different designs for clinical studies, good designs do
tend to be re-used and while the specific content may vary for each study
(i.e., there will be no two studies that are exactly alike) there will be a
high degree of re-usable topic map components (i.e., sub-maps).



Thoughts?



-- Jim





From: Brennan, Michael [CNTUS] [mailto:MBrenna3@its.jnj.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Joel Finkle; dita-pharma@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Laura.Zupko@gsk.com; Martin.Sjoholm@astrazeneca.com;
David.H.Brown@astrazeneca.com; thomas.brunner@novartis.com;
janet.stoltenborg@astrazeneca.com; peter_civitarese@merck.com;
Monica.Mehta@genzyme.com; Brooke.Hinkson@genzyme.com;
averbacj@ls-integration-partners.com
Subject: RE: More thinking about Pharmaceutical Documents and DITA: Maps
versus Templates



Joel:

Good questions.

Adding to your questions - I am not sure that I would call
inclusion/exclusion criteria as "repeating components" .  It depends whether
you view inclusion/exclusion criteria as a section vs a collection of
criteria.  Some criteria will be shared across protocol while others will be
revised or new criteria created.



Other point that we need to consider is whether a given element (topic) will
be referenced by another file.  How critical is it to have "persistent
meta-data"  that will help define "authoritative sources" of information.

Michael



From: Joel Finkle [mailto:Joel.Finkle@imagesolutions.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 12:42 PM
To: dita-pharma@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Brennan, Michael [CNTUS]; Laura.Zupko@gsk.com;
Martin.Sjoholm@astrazeneca.com; David.H.Brown@astrazeneca.com;
thomas.brunner@novartis.com; janet.stoltenborg@astrazeneca.com;
peter_civitarese@merck.com; Monica.Mehta@genzyme.com;
Brooke.Hinkson@genzyme.com; averbacj@ls-integration-partners.com
Subject: More thinking about Pharmaceutical Documents and DITA: Maps versus
Templates



I've come across another topic that's worth thinking about in terms of the
DITA standard and extensions needed for Pharmaceutical Regulatory documents:
The DITA Map specification is pretty darn slim.



The DITA Map is how topics are collected into documents, and they are listed
as sequential, tabular, etc.

This is sufficient to describe the output document that has been created
from topics, but I don't think it's enough to be a template for a lot of
regulatory documents.



Specifically, the DITA Map concept does not seem to include concepts such
as:

.         Optional components (e.g. a pediatric safety statement in a
protocol)

.         Selection from a choice (taking the protocol again, a standard,
versus pediatric versus geriatric template, all based on a single set of
topics)

.         Repeating components (e.g. adding another objective, inclusion
criteria, study event, etc.)



In my mind, a system that is capable of storing templates for creating
regulatory documents, should be able to handle these concepts, and create
(from templates) the needed topics as you make your choices and add to lists
of items.

This doesn't seem to be part of the DITA standard.  I don't have much
experience with DITA tools, so it's possible that this has already been
implemented.  I need to look at more of the commercial tools and the Open
Toolkit.



Joel



----


Joel Finkle


Director, Regulatory Informatics



 <http://www.imagesolutions.com/>
http://www.imagesolutions.com/Portals/0/images/emailsig/isilogo.gif



Image Solutions, Inc.


100 South Jefferson Road


Whippany, NJ 07981


T: 847.989.6028


joel.finkle@imagesolutions.com





  _____

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers.




The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.