Biomedical Metadata Standards

  • Prakash M. Nadkarni
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


The arrival of standardization within a field is a sign of its maturity. An entertaining and educative account of the history of standardization can be found in the widely reproduced article by Nesmith1: it began with weights and measures, and spread into areas such as the gauge of railroad tracks and standardized dimensions of hardware units. In computing, the first (de facto) standard was possibly in the area of high-level programming languages (FORTRAN) in 1957, though it was adopted on non-IBM hardware only in the early ­sixties. The ASCII character-encoding scheme (=American Standard Code for Information Interchange) arrived in 1960.


Unify Modeling Language Metadata Standard Clinical Document Architecture Interchange Format Unify Modeling Language Class Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1.  1.
    Nesmith A. A Long, Arduous March Toward Standardization. Smithsonian Magazine. 1985:83.Google Scholar
  2.  2.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Dublin Core metadata element set, version 1.1: reference description. 2002 [cited 2002 Feb 23, 2002]; Available from:
  3.  3.
    Nadkarni PM, Brandt CA. The common data elements for cancer research: remarks on functions and structure. Methods Inf Med. 2006;45(6):594-601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4.  4.
    Extended Metadata Registry Consortium. XMDR. 2010 [cited 11/1/10]; Available from:
  5.  5.
    Human Proteomics Organization. Functional Genomics Experiment (FuGE) Home Page 2010 [cited 11/1/10]; Available from:
  6.  6.
    Deutsch E. mzML: a single, unifying data format for mass spectrometer output. Proteomics. 2008;8(14):2776-2777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7.  7.
    OpenEHR Consortium. OpenEHR. 2010 [cited 11/2/10; Available from:
  8.  8.
    Benson T. Principles of Health Interoperability HL7 and SNOMED. London: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  9.  9.
    Aerts J. Ten good reasons why an HL7-XML message is not always the best solution as a format for a CDISC standard (and especially not for submission data). 2008 [cited 9/2/10]; Available from:
  10. 10.
    Schadow G, Russler DC, Mead CN, McDonald CJ. Integrating medical information and knowledge in the HL7 RIM. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000:764–768.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rishel W. HL7 V3 messages need a critical midcourse correction. Gartner Industry Research Publication ID Number: G0014095. 2006 Gartner Group Inc., Stamford, CT.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wrightson A. Is it possible to be simple without being stupid? Exploring the Semantics of Model-driven XML. Extreme Markup Languages 2007; 2007; Montreal.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wikipedia. Domain-specific language. 2010 [cited 10/1/10]; Available from:
  14. 14.
    Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Boyer S, et al. HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, release 2. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(1):30-39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Health Level Seven. HL7 Clinical Document Architecture version 2.0. 2004 [cited 8/1/10]; Available from:
  16. 16.
    Browne E. Archetypes for HL7 CDA documents. 2008 [cited 9/1/10]; Available from:
  17. 17.
    Henning M. The rise and fall of CORBA. ACM Queue. 2006;4(5):28-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakash M. Nadkarni
    • 1
  1. 1.School of MedicineYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations