Conny welcomed attendees and outlined the 

A meeting taker has been selected.

The group, especially new participants, are well informed about the work done so far.

Short introduction to the Potato Provenance charter and results so far (appendix 1).

The minutes of the previous meeting are approved.

Minutes previous meeting, Thursday 23sep21 (appendix 2)

The group understands the project charter and has the opportunity to comment on it.

Discuss draft Potato Provenance Charter (appendix 3)

Conny (AgGateway): Reviewed the deliverables of the work packages. He also reviewed the feedback so far. 

Reviewed the notes from the Sept 23 meeting.

FEEDBACK:

Alistair (Proagrica): This is a worthy effort, but there is enough interest from the FMIS companies for us to allocate resources. We've invested a lot of money to federate json messages. What are the financial benefits for us to participate? WP1 and WP 2 would be good place to start. Field names are often different. 

Conny(AgGateway): agreed that we would start with WP1. He also confirmed that joining the working group does not mean one has to adopt a standard that comes out of the group. We will finish the charter and reach out to the FMIS companies.

Ivor (Dacom): I share the same reluctance. It is a lot of work to maintain a standard. Have to maintain a multitude of code lists. Always having to map the data to code lists. Where is the monetary advantage?

Conny(AgGateway): The potato companies see an advantage of using one standard.

Ivor (Dacom): Create an open-source project that can access and transform the data that the potato companies can use to access and consume the data even if they are in different formats. 

Alistair (Proagrica): If we and our regional competitors can agree on a common purpose and agree on where we want to have federated data solutions. Focus on WP1. Why not just keep spatial shape files? 

Andrew (Varda - Yara): For us, it is attractive to call out the issues. 

Ivor (Dacom): Is WP1 focused on the data format? We can handle many different formats. Adding one extra format is not of much value. There is reason why there are many different standards. It's difficult to stay up to date with the changing standards.
Growers have to use with 6 or 7 different definitions of field boundaries, based on the use case.
In The Netherlands and Belgium the EDI-Crop standard is implemented to exchange crop related data; why not accept the data model of this standard as a preferred global semantic standard.

Dirk (Lamb Weston Meijer): Start with the FMIS companies

Niek (McCain):Start with spatial components/field boundaries. Farmers send coordinates but then we have to convert it. The coordinates are different across different countries/regions. We have to maintain the various API versions which takes time. Growers have to report the same data twice. 

Ben (Proagrica): What is the curated list for the potato company. Understand the key elements the farmer needs to deal with.

Leon (Agrovision): I agree with Alistair. It's a small group right now. It's a challenge when dealing with multiple regions. 

Andrew (Varda - Yara): Will not arrive at a single definition of a field boundary but we can address the problem of knowing how to access. Have a common integration point of where I can find the data. The burden falls on the integrator (i.e., McCains). Can we develop a common registry to find the different field boundary definitions?

Alistair (Proagrica): It's common to have split fields that are treated very differently. Potato companies need to know the crop zone boundary. Need to include the consumers of the data.

Conny(AgGateway): Let's focus on WP1: field boundaries and geo-spatial boundary definitions. 

Niek (McCain): McCain would like to see a higher level of standardization in delivering the crop related data to McCain. We could start with harmonizing the spatial component (the field boundaries, the crop zone boundaries) of the crop-field recordings. A smaller group can make a lot of progress.

Task WP 1
(Conny Graumans) 

The group agrees to the task specification for the workgroup for WP 1.

Discuss the task description workgroup for Work Package 1 (appendix 4)

The group understands and agrees to the next steps to be taken.

• Finalize the charter. 
• Get it approved by AGW CIO/CEO.
• Execute the Call for Participation.

Attendees: Please send Conny a few comments on your specific ideas on where we should focus. 

The meeting is closed.