Skip to content
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

ADR for env triad terms #880

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
87 changes: 87 additions & 0 deletions decisions/0015-env-triad-structure.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
---
status: proposed / in progress
date: 2024-08-28
deciders: Montana Smith, Mark Miller, Sierra Moxen
consulted: Lee Ann McCue, Natalie Winans
informed:
---
# Establishing valid terms for MIxS Environmental Triad

## Context and Problem Statement

Determining what to assert for each of the environmental triad slot (`env_broad_scale`, `env_local_scale`, and `env_medium`) is difficult.
NMDC will provide a reporducible logic to provide users with a curated lists of valid terms for each slot.

These terms will not be limiting, a user can still use string match to enter terms. This is a temporart allowance until user research and refinment of these queries is completed.
Any term provided by a user that does **not** come from the provided list will be evaluated.

*This ADR is in progress. Initialy plan has been outlined here & may change*

## Decision Outcome

To provide a reusable method of establishing valid terms, NMDC will provide rules for "general" allowed terms. Meaning the ontology terms that are identified using the "NMDC General Query" could be applied to **any** environmental sample type (MIxS Extensions).

To ensure interoperability and consistancy, the NMDC General Query will be ammended for each environmental sample type.
- To satisfy NMDC needs, we will start here with soil.
- This ADR will be updated as environment specific queries are created.
- No environment specific query should be "cherry picked". Rather any filtering should be accomplished as a general query. (Example, will not remove a specific term by ID, but rather identify what is the rule that can be created to fit a overall need.)

NMDC General Query
- `env_broad_scale` will terms that branch from be from biome [ENVO:00000428]
We will’ evaluate what is lost when ecosystem is excluded and determine what needs “re-added” or requested of envo
Env_loca_scale will be material entity - biome - environmental material & narrowed from there. See 3.ii above
Env_medium will be environmental material
For SOIL extension specifically
Env_broad_scale will be biome - aquatic biome then human reviewed
Split leaf nodes & non-leaf nodes.
Review these lead and non-leaf nodes for elimination.
Expect leaf nodes to be removed.
Env_local_scale, see 3.ii above
Env_medium will be all environmental materials with soil or soils in their name or description. Possible stemming if needed.


<!-- This is an optional element. Feel free to remove. -->
### Consequences

* Good, because {positive consequence, e.g., improvement of one or more desired qualities, …}
* Bad, because {negative consequence, e.g., compromising one or more desired qualities, …}
* … <!-- numbers of consequences can vary -->

<!-- This is an optional element. Feel free to remove. -->
## Validation

{describe how the implementation of/compliance with the ADR is validated. E.g., by a review or an ArchUnit test}

<!-- This is an optional element. Feel free to remove. -->
## Pros and Cons of the Options

### {title of option 1}

<!-- This is an optional element. Feel free to remove. -->
{example | description | pointer to more information | …}

* Good, because {argument a}
* Good, because {argument b}
<!-- use "neutral" if the given argument weights neither for good nor bad -->
* Neutral, because {argument c}
* Bad, because {argument d}
* … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary -->

### {title of other option}

{example | description | pointer to more information | …}

* Good, because {argument a}
* Good, because {argument b}
* Neutral, because {argument c}
* Bad, because {argument d}
* …

<!-- This is an optional element. Feel free to remove. -->
## More Information

{You might want to provide additional evidence/confidence for the decision outcome here and/or
document the team agreement on the decision and/or
define when this decision when and how the decision should be realized and if/when it should be re-visited and/or
how the decision is validated.
Links to other decisions and resources might here appear as well.}