Define.xml

Hi I am getting following errors for variable RSTEST using validator Vv1.5 for Definexml v2.0:

Using OpenCDISC validator version 1.4.1, whenever I go to generate the define.xml regardless of the config file I specify (config-sdtm-3.1.2.xml, config-sdtm-3.1.3.xml, config-send-3.0.xml), the generated define.xml always displays CDISC SDTM for the standard and version 3.2.1 in the metadata:

      <MetaDataVersion OID="" Name="" Description="" def:DefineVersion="1.0.0"

                       def:StandardName="CDISC SDTM"

Is define.xml Version 2 planned to be released with OpenCDISC on a specific time point?

Thanks a lot for your input and best regards,

Pablo Orosco Joerger

Hi,

Do I have to include LBORRESU = "none" into the user-defined codelist in the define.xml? Since actually there is no unit, I don't see a reason to list it.

Thanks in advance!

Hi!

In the CDISC Metadata submission package I have an define.xml example. when I open it I can see that some borders are not shown when fields are blank. This looks somehow not nice. Does anyone know why this is?

If I use the define.xsl 2-0-0 out of the package to create my define.xml.

I hope that someone can answer my question!

Best regards

Hi!

I have a questions regarding the define.xsl 2-0-0. Using this xsl does not automatically mean that I am using Define.xml V2.0, or? I can still use xsl 2-0-0 and xml V1.0? Since the Define.xml V2.0 is not yet covered by the CDISC checker, I would rather go with the Define.xml V1.0.

Thanks in Advance!

Prefacing context: I'm working off of version 1.0 of the define.xml spec.

Hi,

I am currently working with define.xsl 2-0-0 to create Define.xml V2.0. I know that it is not yet on the list of the FDA standards, so I would like to know if version 2 can be checked by the open cdisc validator?

As I already mentioned in the "rules" section (http://www.opencdisc.org/projects/validator/rules/dd0005) this rule is essentially wrong as it violates the basic XML rule that the attributes may come in any order.
There is no single reason for this rule, it does not make sense, is counterproductive and thus should be removed.