| [21:36:47] | <symbioquine[m]> | <mstenta[m] "Mm yea! That could be a good use"> I'm not quite sure I understand what you're suggesting... |
| [21:40:09] | <symbioquine[m]> | I'll elaborate in case the transmission error is on my side; Some grains have awns while others don't. e.g. It might be useful to record that this barley has awns and this other barley doesn't have awns, but the trait doesn't really make sense to set at all on a legume. |
| [06:11:48] | * arvidsjaur[m] has joined #farmos |
| [07:27:16] | <mstenta[m]> | Ah yea I was thinking of "cross sectional" traits in the sense of: being computed from multiple variables combined - but you were talking about just an intrinsic trait - gotcha |
| [07:28:02] | <mstenta[m]> | Although... perhaps the trait of the asset is "computed" in the sense that it would look to the "Crop/variety" term to find that information? |
| [07:28:36] | <mstenta[m]> | So that you can define it on the crop/variety level instead of repeating the same trait on every individual asset |
| [11:16:56] | * DirtyGiraffe has joined #farmos |
| [12:02:13] | <symbioquine[m]> | <mstenta[m] "Although... perhaps the trait of"> Yeah, I think that would be a good strategy in general - especially if both were possible and the final set of traits were the union of the crop/variety's traits and any traits recorded at the planting/seed level. |
| [12:04:30] | <symbioquine[m]> | Imagine a breeding program where you're tracking successive trait selections within a cross. It wouldn't make sense to create new crop/varieties for all the combinations/generations, but it would be helpful to have a structured way to track the traits associated with individual lots of seed or plantings. |