Inconsistencies in the masterdata #39
JosePizarro3
started this conversation in
Ideas
Replies: 3 comments
-
|
Besides that, there are some important changes that the masterdata needs to do in order to be high-standard:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Tara told me a small mistake they did when defining masterdata:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Found out with @Tara-Lakshmipathy that:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
When exploring the main instance of openBIS, we realized some inconsistencies from the point of view of creating a generic Data Model:
codedefined to be inheriting from non-existing entities. Example:RAW_MATERIAL.ALUMINIUM,RAW_MATERIALdoes not exist.SPECIMEN.FCG,SPECIMENdoes not exist.CONTROL.FREEZERandINSTRUMENT.FREEZER.STATION_LAYOUT.INSTRUMENTare of dataType OBJECT, but they don't have an associate objectTypeINSTRUMENTcode can be conflicting with the objectType with the same code, same happens with PUBLICATION (both an assignment on COLLECTION: DEFAULT_EXPERIMENT and a property type of type MULTILINE_VARCHAR)DLS.ATTENUATOR. I think they actually mean "composition", i.e., there is an object/collection/dataset calledDLSwhich has these properties.PRODUCT.CATEGORYandPRODUCT_CATEGORYBeta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions