Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

Meeting 4

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this content. View the current version.

Compare with Current Restore this Version View Version History

« Previous Version 3 Current »

Attendees - Session 1

Stuart Rhea, Sarah Hovinga, Andres Ferreyra, Hiroyuki Morita, Daoud Urdu, Robert Garcia, Cale Boriack, Brent Kemp, RackWoo Kim, Marie Beuret, Clement Jonquet

  • Reviewed agenda, no changes made

  • Level set, recap of current model, expectations and examples

  • Reviewed use cases captured so far, last time, pointed out we are still missing use cases from food processors and CPG companies

    • Note both of the missing use cases are in the value chain where the “crop” has transitioned to a “harvested commodity”

  • Review of EPA Active Pesticide Product Registration Information Listing (APPRIL)

    • Link to site to get the excel reviewed (new version posted every Monday)

    • Question if crop is ever different between a state list of crops and the national list (US example)

      • Need to ensure there is a means to capture geo-politically dependent context information, including different regional/national governmental levels

    • Reviewed parsed table

      • First column is where the product is used, and is not agriculture specific

        • The sheet is not usable data, was just used to try and detect patterns to classify crop refinement categories

        • There are several issues with consistency

          • https://openrefine.org/ suggested as a tool to help with cleaning the list

          • e.g. Tomato vs. tomatoes

          • soil fumigation vs. greenhouse-soil fumigation may indicate there is a refinement needed for where the crop is grown greenhouse vs. open field

        • The list seems to mix the what, where, how when looking through the entries for tomatoes

          • Where - greenhouse, field(implicit), container and where on the plant foliar vs soil

          • How treatment is applied, fumigation, injected, etc.

        • Question on if there are any labels of the excel sheet that explain the status of the value

          • e.g. are any of the entries tagged as superseded, inactive, invalid, etc.

            • Does include status of the product, but not status of the tags

      • List is a good example of why this work is needed, very messy list that is not very machine readable

  • Canadian regulator agency is doing something similar to what we are doing, they are a little farther ahead in leveraging controlled vocabularies

  • Netherlands vocabularies review

    • Based on “Closed Loop Spray” project from AgGateway Europe

    • Field centric, but did have 5 or 6 crop refinement lists

      • Attempted to translate to English from Dutch with mixed results

      • This list does not link the sub crops to crops, at least as shared

        • No ability to show the relationships, e.g. what are all the types of tomatoes

        • There are plans underway to transform the list into a graph database or have an ontology to create these linkages

    • Curious where the list came from

    • Also brings up the need for some sort of long term maintenance of any lists this group develops

    • Many of these things change somewhat frequently so if there is not a robust mechanism to maintain the utility will drop off rapidly

      • ISO 19135 provides a framework for managing lists like this

      • AgroPortal is doing some of this already

    • The intended use column looks promising, believe there is something in the CVT from USDA that would be similar

    • Looked at other dimensions that seems to be a good starting point for refinement categories

      • Growth environment (open air, greenhouse, …)

      • Cultivation type

      • Growth medium (soil, water, straw, container, …)

      • Crop rotation

  • Homework to review and add to the catalog of vocabularies