-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Soil Test Workflow in ADAPT #148
Comments
I think this way of modeling soil test works fine. |
We started discussion with the above in the 7 August 2024 meeting. Some participants liked the documents approach as laid out, others pointed out that the two Work Records were in common practice two parts of the same document. |
Renaming this ticket to "workflow" to separate it from modeling the observation codes. |
I've expanded on diagrams for continued discussion. In the below:
|
I like your work, Kelly. It makes me wonder how to represent the finer points of a desired observation, like the depths, any specific sampling or observation method desired, etc. Curiously enough, I wonder if, analogous to what ISO 11783-10 does, we might not be able to re-use the format of the actual observations, adding a status (1: planned / 2: running / 3: paused / 4: completed / 5: template / 6: canceled). |
From 11783, explaining what "template" means (which is a very valuable concept in scouting), |
Per sampling discussion on 14 Aug 2024 attached is the examples and information the Modus team documented for how sample points generally work for both grid and zone methods as well as single point and composite samples complete with pictures. |
An example list of ala carte nutrients and depths from Agvise Labs. I will find packages as well as they are commonly used. |
In the 14 Aug 2024 meeting we discussed my latest mockups above. @aferreyra recommended that we need to keep the separation between Work Orders and Work Records as in my initial mockup for cases where what happened was different from what was intended. General agreement from group. We debated representing the lab package as a product or something else. Wherever we model that data, we agreed that we need flexibility to model a group of requested tests by a package name, or individual tests down to the specific test methods. Re the final Work Record above, we agreed that I should not have used the same UUIDs from the work order to map back to the depth, rather that the depth should be explicit in the report. @DarinGary pointed out that common industry practice is one column per test per depth. We will continue to discuss and refine in the next meeting. Please continue to add comments, feedback and any corrections to the above. |
As an initial use case for Observations, we are investigating how to model soil test data in ADAPT. This diagram illustrates (at left) how ADAPT models field operations and (at right) my own initial thoughts on how we could reuse the ADAPT document types to model the soil testing process.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: