# ADMH, ADCM are classified as "BDS" and ADAE as "ADAM other" instead of "OCCDS" class **URL:** \ **Category:** ADaM\ **Created:** [January 13, 2017, 12:03pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050 "2017-01-13T12:03:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sergiy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/user_avatar/forum.certara.com/sergiy/32/2553_2.png) [@Sergiy](https://forum.certara.com/u/Sergiy)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/1 "2017-01-16T17:40:25Z")
Hi Shehal, I agrre with you. However, see the following discussion: [https://www.pinnacle21.com/forum/dd0055](https://www.pinnacle21.com/forum/dd0055) Regards, Sergiy ---
**Author:** ![Sergiy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/user_avatar/forum.certara.com/sergiy/32/2553_2.png) [@Sergiy](https://forum.certara.com/u/Sergiy)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/2 "2017-01-16T18:03:11Z")
For validation we are following official ADaM rules published by CDISC team. There is no formal business rules for OCCDS. Therefore, there is no actual diffrence between ADaM OTHER and OCCDS in terms of validation itself. ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 7:05am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/3 "2017-01-20T07:05:47Z")
Thanks Sergiy for your response, our understanding from above response/disussion is that ADCM, ADMH would be classified under BDS until CDSIC publishes new formal business rules for this class (OCCDS). please confirm.. ---
**Author:** ![Sergiy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/user_avatar/forum.certara.com/sergiy/32/2553_2.png) [@Sergiy](https://forum.certara.com/u/Sergiy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 10:09pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/4 "2017-01-20T22:09:27Z")
According to ADaM, BDS datasets must include PARAM/PARAMCD/AVAL variables. This is not the case for common implementations of ADCM, ADMH datasets. ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 7:15am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/5 "2017-01-25T07:15:40Z")
![summary report.jpg](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/original/1X/069fe28e387ee61908de17f847b796f7750d7f5f.jpeg) But, still it is not clear to me that why the config file is treating ADCM, ADMH and ADDV as BDS datasets rather than ADaM OTHER, and why it does not recognise ADRACE at all. Please see the attached image of the summary report ---
**Author:** ![Sergiy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/user_avatar/forum.certara.com/sergiy/32/2553_2.png) [@Sergiy](https://forum.certara.com/u/Sergiy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/6 "2017-01-25T16:37:57Z")
Hi Snehal, I assume that it’s due to the use of ASTDT variable in your ADCM dataset. In this case your complain is perfectly valid. Current definition of BDS structure in P21 Validator includes a presence of ASTDT and ASTDTM variables. We are discussing removing these variables from our definition of BDS structure. Meanwhile, you can manually modify P21C specs by removing highlighted text from validation configuration files. For example, there is a file “ **_ADaM 1.0.xml_** ” in “ **_…\components\config_** ” folder. Open it by any plain text editor and find the following definition of BDS structure on row 2369: _\_ Remove highlighted text, save, restart Validator. Regards, Sergiy ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2017, 11:13am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/7 "2017-02-06T11:13:39Z")
Hi Sergiy, Thank you for your response, that answers my question. We look forward to an updated configuration file. Regards, Snehal ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2017, 8:28am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/8 "2017-02-08T08:28:01Z")
![new_report.jpg](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/original/1X/fdf38f9cc6339dbb6a775ae25ac50187bab81764.jpeg) Hi Sergiy, I tried manually removing the ASTDT, ASTDTM from key variables in the ADaM config file but it didn’t solve the issue, ADCM, ADMH are getting “unrecognized”. Please refer the above image for the report. Thanks, Snehal ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 8:57am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/9 "2017-03-21T08:57:15Z")
Hi Sergiy, We tried manually editing the ADaM config file by adding configuration for some of the domains (e.g ADCM, ADMH), we edited the current prototyping options and added CM and MH specific variables, then mapped them to “other” custom built configuration/validation rules and it worked fine, we could get these domains classified as “OTHER”. Do you have any alternative suggestion to this approach?, ---
**Author:** ![hanna.neckman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@hanna.neckman](https://forum.certara.com/u/hanna.neckman)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 10:18am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/10 "2017-06-02T10:18:37Z")
We have developed our ADCM, ADMH as OCCDS; as per the ADaM IG 1.1 (and ADaM\_OCCDS\_v1.0). When running through the validator (v2.2.0) we get errors and as I read other posts in this thread I just want you to confirm; Do we have to update the config file to not treat these datasets as BDS? If yes, can you please guide me exact what to update? Can we expect an update in the config file for OCCDS datasets in a coming release of Pinnacle validator? I have understood the CDISC team has not yet released any formal business rules for OCCDS. regards Hanna ---
**Author:** ![Sergiy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/certara/user_avatar/forum.certara.com/sergiy/32/2553_2.png) [@Sergiy](https://forum.certara.com/u/Sergiy)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/11 "2017-06-02T16:54:46Z")
Hi Hanna, The CDISC ADaM team has not yet published rules for ADaM 1.1, but they are working on getting it done by the end of Q2. Once the rules are published, Pinnacle 21 plans to make the config available within 3 month. So end of September is the current estimate, assuming CDISC stays on schedule. Kind Regards, Sergiy ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 9:09am UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/12 "2017-06-14T09:09:56Z")
Hi Sergiy, Assuming CDSIC stays on schedule, can we expect the issues with ADRACE (getting unrecognized), and ADCM/ ADMH /ADDV/ ADMH (OCCDS datasets getting validated as BDS) to be fixed by September end?? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks, Snehal ---
**Author:** ![John.Mullisky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@John.Mullisky](https://forum.certara.com/u/John.Mullisky)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 7:43pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/13 "2018-03-14T19:43:30Z")
So I’ve been monitoring the releases for Pinnacle 21 community.. will there be a ADaM.1.1 configuration release? ---
**Author:** ![Snehal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snehal](https://forum.certara.com/u/Snehal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 12:03pm UTC](https://forum.certara.com/t/admh-adcm-are-classified-as-bds-and-adae-as-adam-other-instead-of-occds-class/1050/14 "2017-01-13T12:03:32Z")
Hi there, I have a question regarding validation of ADaM domains like ADMH, ADCM, ADAE. As per new ADaM\_OCCDS\_v1.0 released in Feb 2016, ADMH, ADCM, ADAE should come under “OCCDS” class instead of “BDS” class, but when I ran the latest community version of Pinnacle validator (2.2.0) using ADaM 1.0.xml config file, ADMH and ADCM domains are getting validated under “BDS” class and ADAE under “ADAM other”. Why is it so? when can I expect the updated config file for ADaM datasets? Please see attached the snippet from the summary page of validation report that is getting generated.