Agenda and Minutes

Main Topics

Use

1. Review proposed scope, deliverables, etc for potential WG

   Topic Leader: Conny

   Topic: Agenda

   1. Leader: Conny Graumans

   2. The desired outcome is that the group reviews the proposed project and gauge interest in pursuingagreement on the meeting agenda with adjustments as required.

   3. Pre-meeting notes and /references: Proposed Agenda.

   4. Minutes:

   5. Scope:

      1. Focus on data exchange between FMIS systems, and third parties (governmental organisations, monitoring and auditing authorities, agricultural produce processing industry (sugar industry, potato industry, etc.)).

      2. The supply chain data-exchange between producers - logistic service providers - distributors - farmers is out of scope. In Europe for crop protection products, this is addressed by the AgroCloSer initiative.

   6. Current ADAPT integration utilized by SMAG has several short comings when it comes to API implementations; these can be addressed in the proposed project.

   7. There are numerous smaller, region or state specific FMIS’ in Europe; cant solve this but we should be able to come up with a more generic standard for exchanging this data across multiple jurisdictions.

      1. Seems ADAPT is a good basis for not only regulatory reporting but also to report to food processing companies.

   8. Deliverables, potential additions

      1. Add to the deliverables already mentioned in the proposal:

         1. Examples: serialized data in the different models to help implementers understand it.

         2. A basic plugin to convert from one format through ADAPT to a reporting structure.

   9. ADAPT Standard

      1. The ADAPT maintenance committee plans to publish the ADAPT data model as a JSON schema; for this the Score-tool will be used. Currently, the ADAPT plugins are published in C-sharp format to be used for Dot.Net implementation. C-sharp is not widely supported, so a Json schema publication is very welcome.

      2. Could create a UML diagram, but not specifically in scope currently.

      3. Review some changes and thoughts around more API friendly tweaks to things like ContextItems, etc.

   10. Potato reporting in USA

       1. Cool Farm Tool in PNW US for potato production for Potato Sustainability Alliance

          1. N, P, K, total water, used to have pesticide.

       2. In the USA, data fort the processing industry is largely collected in excel/.csv, then permissioned by farmers.

   11. Charter Review

       1. Minimal additional comments.

       2. Need to ensure examples are in scope.

   12. Discussion for converters, AgGateway hosting a service

       1. Historically AgGateway has not processed data, other than maybe for test/examples.

   13. Recommendations

       1. When executing the gap analyses between existing European standards and ADAPT, make use of concrete examples of the messages that are being exchanged, rather then working through the implementation guidelines. The four existing standards for the gap analyses are: eDaplos standard Agro-EDI-Europe (France), eCROP standard UN/Cefact (Europe), Crop data API’s Smag (France), EDI-Crop standard (The Netherlands).

       2. One of the deliverables should also be some examples of Json messages based on the ADAPT data model.

       3. It is proposed for AgGateway to offer cloud applications (converters) to covert the one standard syntax (e.g. eDaplos) into another standard syntax (EDI-Crop).

   General agreement to pursue creating a WG and to start working on this topic.
   This is a great opportunity to get the ADAPT data model endorsed by European stakeholders and to set an standard for exchanging crop related data.

    

2. Topic: Notes previous meeting

   1. Leader: Conny Graumans

   2. Review / agree on the notes of the previous meeting.

   3. Pre-meeting notes/references: 

      1. Notes of the 14Mar23 meet-up.
         

   4. Minutes: All agree to the minutes of the 7dec22 SC meeting.

3. Review proposed scope, deliverables, etc for potential WG

   1. Topic Leader: Conny Graumans

   2. The desired outcome is that the group reviews the proposed project and gauge interest in pursuing

   3. Pre-meeting notes and references:

   4. Minutes:

4. Next steps

   1. The next step is for Ben and Conny to process all the feedback and the results of this meet-up in a modified version of the project proposal and to issue a charter to potential stakeholders to participate in the work group that will execute the project.

Closing Topics