"Seegrid will be due for a migration to confluence on the 1st of August. Any update on or after the 1st of August will NOT be migrated"

ADX 2 Discussions and unresolved issues


In the ADX 2 project we recognised that there are a number of distinct use-cases for assay data, including (but not limited to(
  1. reporting, lab to company, lab to lab, intra-company, intra-lab
  2. statutory reporting
  3. archiving
  4. LIMS
  5. billing, invoicing

There are large overlaps in the information required to support each of these use-cases, but particular requirements associated with each.

The project sponsors determined that in ADX 2 we should focus on the report use-case. This is the 80/20 use-case that concerns the exploration and mining industry. The Newmont lab reporting format can serve as the basic requirements statement.

This is a considerable de-scoping relative to the ADX 1.0 prototype. However, after working to try to adapt ADX 1.0 to the restricted use-case for some time, we decided to strip it right back and start again from a conceptual model based on the Newmont template and the Observations and Measurements pattern. Those components that closely resemble ADX 1.0 components were subject to a rigoruous comparison, and several pieces of ADX 1.0 were re-instated in suitable places.

It is expected that additional use-cases can be addressed subsequently, re-using many components from adx:Report, but making adaptations as required.

More ScopeDiscussion.

-- SimonCox - 28 Oct 2003

Project Post Mortem


Ref ADXTwoPostMortem report: p25: 'purpose' property is good description of that particular value. I wouldn't recommend changing it. Regarding 'resetting the value' of the purpose property...this information is never likely to be supplied to the provider and so they are unlikely to be able to reset the property for values specific to the requester - and send it to requestor via ADX. Internal provider values eg LBKL, LSTD etc would be flagged from the provider's LIMS at the outset. Surely the requestor needs to manage setting the appropriate values in their data (eg FBLK, FSTD etc)within their own application for analysing data?.

p41 Confirming that "it is only necessary to record the mass/volume supplied for submitted specimens" in most cases.

p50 Size distribution for a specimen is '4' - specifically in my experience for the type of assay data we are considering (eg data generally used in exploration projects etc) then the size distribution is considered a predicatable consequence of a preparation procedure OR is a requirement of a particular analyte procedure. For other types of analysis is may be less predicatable - if it becomes a measure specific to a specimen I would still consider this to be an analysis type to be reported to the requestor (and charged to the requestor). SamanthaHussey - 27 Nov 2003

Topic revision: r42 - 15 Oct 2010, UnknownUser

Current license: All material on this collaboration platform is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence (CC BY 3.0).