Page 1 of 4
Incubator Project
IBP Field Book
(IBP-FB) Project 1
Meeting Number ###.###.###
Password iPC123
Date 10/22/10
Invitees/Attendees (Attendees are in orange)
Steve Goff
Andy Lenards
Graham McLaren
Héctor Sánchez Villeda
Jeff White
Chengzhi Liang
Martha Narro
Peter Wenzl
Brian Love
Eric Lyons
Fran Clarke
Oscar Riera-Lizarazu
Topics for Discussion
 Representatives of IBP and iPlant met in Tucson September 29th through October 1st to discuss how
best to collaborate. One project that was identified as priority is the IBP Field Book.

Origins of the Fieldbook
An application for the management of data collection regarding crop trials conducted by various crop breeding centers
globally. The application functions without a dedicated network connection. Data collection is done via Excel
Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet includes validation, experiment setup, and crop layout generation (all done via Visual
Basic for Applications [VBA] macros).

Difference from the Workbook
Fieldbook & Workbook are similar but not identical. Each was developed independently by different groups with
different backgrounds/perspectives.
One major difference is that the Fieldbook provides "crop layout randomization." This was a need of the group
developing the application. The Workbook does not have this functionality (because the group developing the
application did not require this functionality).

Who uses them?
Fieldbook is used by CIMMYT (Maize & Wheat breeders), centers in Africa, and some small companies in China.
Workbook is used globally by rice breeders, centers in Canada & Australia.

Strengths/Weaknesses of each (Fieldbook, Workbook)

Fieldbook:
 Weaknesses:
 Built on the filesystem.
 No interaction w/ the Pedigree
 Functionality may not be applicable across crops for breeders
 Strengths:
 Built by breeders (they know the intended workflow very well)
 Viewed as being easier to use
Workbook:
 Weaknesses:
 Not built by breeders (built by statisticians)
 User interface viewed as being very unfriendly

Page 2 of 4
Incubator Project
IBP Field Book
(IBP-FB) Project 1
Meeting Number ###.###.###

Password iPC123
Date 10/22/10
Strengths:
 Database-driven
 Better overall infrastructure
A goal coming out of this discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both the Fieldbook and the Workbook was to
identify a friendly, breeder-oriented user interface that was built on a better infrastructure. (combine the strengths of the
Fieldbook w/ the strengths of the Workbook)
The most important functionality for a new version of the Fieldbook is the ability to export to excel spreadsheet.
A cycle of the user working with the Fieldbook console to create a "study" for a crop trial would end with the export of
an excel spreadsheet file. That file would be used to collect data "offline." Validation within the file would aide in
increasing the quality of the data collect. That file would be imported into the system and the data processed.
This cycle is depicted in the circular drawing (brown) in iplant-ibp-fieldbk-3-far-left.jpg
Brian (Love) asked the question: (paraphrased) is there a tool that helps breeders with: 1) inventory management (set
list generated) 2) nursery/location determination 3) mapping nursery to location 4) fieldbook creation for data capture
[w/ ability for import later] 5) field plot layout?

Data Governance
Currently, there are "central", curated databases for each crop. Each center has a local, private version of the databse
for crop database, germplasm inventory, etc. The data from the local, private database is conditionally exported and
sent to the curator for the center's crop. The curator makes the call on whether the data will be included in the "central",
curated database for the crop. So "central" vs. "local" can also be mapped to "public" vs. "private" for the context of
who has access to the data. Integration and development efforts of IBP-iPlant will likely cause a shift in this approach.
Will the data/databases not being local to the center cause concerns from users? Fran explained concern about the
Canadian wheat group would not use the application if it meant the data was not stored locally.


Conditions for Mockups
 Use of Balsamiq
 Mockups desired with targeted crop groups (3 of them), 8 species, and 14 use cases
 Mockups are intended to simulate a clickable user interface
 incorporate feedback
Calendar
 PAG meeting (mid-January)
 Science article (after PAG)
 DoE Knowledge-Base K-Base (to be determined)
Page 3 of 4
Incubator Project
IBP Field Book
(IBP-FB) Project 1
Meeting Number ###.###.###
Password iPC123
Date 10/22/10
Actions
New Development
1. Complete Fieldbook Mockups
timeline: 6 weeks total
responsibility: IBP
 Iteration Steps
 Produce Mockups
timeline: 2 weeks
 Elicit User Feedback
timeline: 1-2 week(s)
 Goal: complete at least 2 iteration in 6
weeks
 Scope: Mockups should be produced as
"clickable" prototypes using Balsamiq and
must address the 14 use cases for 8
species of crops. The user groups
(breeder perspectives) may constitute 3
sets of mockups.
2. Come consensus on what is required
timeline: 2 weeks
responsibility: IBP
3. Begin GUI Design
timeline: 2 weeks
responsibility: iPlant (w/ feedback from IBP)
4. Evaluate Increasing Support Species (and Identify
Any Challenges)
5. Detemine Continuing Timeline & Strategy
 Determine Strategy for PAG & National
Association of Plant Breeders
timeline: (not discussed)
responsibility: iPlant & IBP
 Determine Detailed Timeline (include
Dept. of Energy Knowledge Base KBase)
timeline: by PAG (mid-Jan. 2011)
responsibility: iPlant & IBP
Proposed Topics

System Evaluation & Integration
(can happen concurrent to `New Development` column)
1. Perform Internal Review of Data Model for
suitability to support more crops (discussion:
Graham & Hector)
2. Determine back-end integration plan/strategy
3. Review Current Data Model
(Martin Sender might be able to aide in review, he
is one of the original designers of the model)
timeline: 2-3 weeks
responsibility: iPlant Collaborative
4. Deploy Database
5. Integration
timeline: after Step #5 for `New Development`
 Make it available
 Determine necessary services
 Build services
Page 4 of 4
Incubator Project
IBP Field Book
(IBP-FB) Project 1
Meeting Number ###.###.###
Password iPC123
Date 10/22/10
Parking Lot (Topics that are tabled for the time-being)
 Comment: Different crop breeders use varied language. This implies an important need to
customize the user interface (thus, localizing the user interface for a crop breeder).
 Existing Issue: Queries across studies are slow (but should not hold up Fieldbook
development).
 Comment: (when capturing data) breeders need ability to conditionally override the validation
provided.
 Major Challenge: 1) Fieldbook & offline functionality. How does this impact implementation
approach? 2) the division of functionality - what is available for offline query?
A Draft Version of this appeared on the wiki here.