RE: [rda-agrisemantics-wg][rda-rice-wg] Feedback needed on a poster on semantics for agriculture data - rice

    You are here

07 Sep 2016
Groups audience: 

Sophie,
I like very much how the rice poster shows some interactions among different actors. I work primarily at the grower level, and think some other actors and interactions are important to the grower and pose semantic interoperability challenges. This may be too much detail, and either merit a separate poster, or not be what you want. In any case, here are some examples:
Additional actors:
- Service providers (i.e., providers of agronomic, spraying, harvesting services, etc.),
- Input suppliers (whoever sells seeds, crop nutrition and crop protection products to the grower)
- Financier (Whoever provides operational capital)
- Regulators (Who the farmer must be in compliance with)
Additional interactions / data requirements:
- Farmer-service provider: Specific parameters regarding field operations (area, fields in scope, products and services to apply, etc.) must be communicated, and mean the same to both. This applies both to a farmer communicating with the provider (e.g., a work order for a custom spraying or harvest job) and in the other direction (e.g., an agronomist making a recommendation of a fungicide based on crop, modes of action used in recent seasons, etc.)
- Farmer-Input Supplier: Amounts, forms, and delivery dates of specific products must be agreed upon. A single base product often has many variants. Often the farmer has a very specific requirement in order to solve their agronomic problems and stay in regulatory compliance.
- Farmer-Regulator: Participation in different programs involves different data requirements, but at various times farmers may be required to report what was planted and where; where products were applied, what products were applied, wand how much of them was applied; what was harvested, where it was harvested from, how much was harvested, and what it will be sued for; and so forth. For example, erroneously reporting the application of a restricted-use pesticide that the farmer does not have a permit for (or that is not labeled for use on that crop) could have serious legal ramifications, and may stem from misspelling a name, or forgetting to add a suffix to that name.
-Farmer-Financier: Unambiguous communication of a crop plan, and/or of in-season progress therein may make the difference between obtaining working capital or not.
Thanks,
Andres
- Show quoted text -From: sophie.aubin=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Sophie Aubin
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 8:52 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [rda-agrisemantics-wg][rda-rice-wg] Feedback needed on a poster on semantics for agriculture data - rice
Dear all,
Please find attached the 1st version of the poster I've just received.
Many thanks to all of you who already helped me. It is not finished yet!
If you feel like doing some comments, please do by tomorrow 14:00 CEST.
The text in white labels needs to be revised. I join a new proposal.
What do you think about it? Are the items representative enough of each point of view?
Kind regards,
Sophie
--
Sophie Aubin
INRA - Centre de Versailles-Grignon
Pôle DV-IST
Route de St Cyr
78026 VERSAILLES-CEDEX
FRANCE
E-mail: ***@***.***
Tél: (33) (0)1 30 83 34 20
Fax: (33) (0)1 30 83 34 40
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to