But like, learn to see what would be the best path. If we wanted to go if we wanted to make use of that, like what? What kind of stuff should we be thinking about on our end?
Yeah. Okay. That makes that makes sense. I had a quick look at the data model. And yeah, I think Yeah.
I can speak a little bit to kind of that in particular too, because we're kind of in the process right now. Greg and I.
So, you know, Formula sort of has just basically a concept of you're managing your assets and you're managing the activities or logs around those assets. And so, right you know, you have like a plant asset to represent your corn in the field. You have your animal assets represent the cow in the field. And what we're building now is a new product module that adds a new product, asset type. So that essentially within your flow of of records and transitions from one asset type to another, you can create a set of products from product assets from your plant assets. So in other words, like you have a plant asset, you do a harvest log, and not one of the outputs of that is 200 tons of corn, or whatever. And there's a relationship field and this is these are like some nitty gritty questions, but I'm curious, there's like a relationship field in the work that you would you wouldn't be able to see a relationship between the product thing back to its original thing. So how am I guess one sort of large level question is how is it how important is it to ensure that to maintain a sort of visible linkage between things that just like absolutely required for things to change?
I think it is such a good question. It depends who you ask. I think if you're dealing for me, basically, if you ask anyone who's working in organic, then it's absolutely, like crucial. That traceability and that proof of provenance is crews is you know, is completely non negotiable.
For me, I see like that organic current kind of certification type thing as sort of a substitute effectively for trust, you know, it's it's that kind of web of trust thing, isn't it? You know, so I don't actually know who's growing my food who's producing it. So I don't know whether they're, you know, an okay. Okay guy who like you know, knows not to spray poison all over it or not. I don't trust them. So I need them to fill in a lot of paperwork and other people to trust them by proxy. So you know, it's like, if you're, if you're dealing with truly local short short food supply chains, and short supply chain food systems, there we go get the words in the right order, eventually. That sort of stuff suddenly doesn't become necessary because you know, you know, people growing your food, producing a food, you know, or or, you know, someone who knows, it's like, it's so so yeah. It's, I think, having it is you know, it's there in the DFC ontology for that reason is that traceability is available, and I think, to have a viable sort of, product in in in the market at the moment. It needs to be there, just because like organic is such a big part of this sector at the moment.
So, um, can you think, does that extend into so as an example, because I want to undo it, I'm just trying to think, like, I'm thinking practically like, there's one of our design constraints need to be that if I am looking at a product that's coming out of farmer Wes, do I need to be able to go bloop, bloop, bloop, back to what, back to the raw material, the yield product back to the materials that were used on it. I mean, we can do most of those things, but it would be valuable to know if that's an actual legit.
I don't think that's I don't I don't think that's a legit, legit call that people are going to ask you for, on your output, as long as it's there. You know, I think it's, it's, it's fine. I don't think you know, you're not you're not going to need to supply that data. I mean, I don't I don't I don't know what's going on in the US at the moment. But certainly here in the UK. The big organic certification bodies are looking at blockchain tech, to sort of, you know, provide provenance and certification sort of verification going forward. But that's like, I don't know if that's actually really going to happen or if it's just another like, you know, crypto pipe dream. I'm not.
And it's worth it's worth noting, to Greg that we you know, I think we will have that linkage internally. So then, you know, what we've always dreamt about before as you can scan a barcode or you know, have a set of barcodes that you can send with your with your QR codes or whatever with your product out somewhere and you scan that and then takes you to a takes you to a little report within the formulas instance to show like hey, yeah, this came from this planting and here's the seating log for when that was seated. Here's the input logs that went alongside that here's the Yeah, when it was harvested, that kind of stuff. So that should that should all be doable. I think the Yeah, the main thing I'd like to wrap my head around is so I mentioned this idea of a product asset. But also we have we're kind of creating a concept of a product type. So you have your your assets sort of represent your specific things and the types represent the kind of high level idea of these types and I feel like that is probably where our connection point here is going to be the notice. And so in formulas, we use Drupal, if you're familiar, and Drupal just has like a taxonomy module. So we use those taxonomies for a lot of things. We use it for plant type, animal type, you know for crops. And varieties and that kind of thing. But it's pretty freeform. So you know, users of formulas can build their own ontologies or their own taxonomies within the system of what of what they want, or I should say of what they grow. So if you only grow corn your taxonomy is corn, or varieties of corn. If you if you're breeding you can make your own terms you know by by creating your own varieties, if you are, you know, a small veg operation, maybe you have 200 Different kinds of tomatoes, and they're all They're all in there but you don't have stuff you don't need. So that's one kind of nice thing. And more broadly, what we're talking about is just adding a simple field to all taxonomy terms to say to link to an external ontology, ontological item. So if there is a plant database, which, you know, is in development in one form or another many places I think we could say okay, here's my corn term in pharma last that I have linked to all of my corn assets. And this corn term links to this ontological you know, canonical idea somewhere else. So that's, that's one thing we might do with product types to meaning like we would still allow users to put in their own product types. We're still trying to figure out what that's going to look like. If it's, you know, a product type is do we have terms for like box of carrots or something like that? Or what, you know, how does this end up? We're, that's what we're kind of thinking through right now. But maybe that term could link to a more official on ontology somewhere. So what I'd like to I think, just start to wrap my head around is what what kind of connection or where's the like low hanging fruit between something like Oh Fn and far more so in that regard, so that we could say, hey, look, we've got all these products. They are marked with these product types, which are maybe linked to this term, or this this idea? Does that make it easier for OFM to ingest it and display it properly? Or something like that? And, you know, I'll be perfectly honest, I have very little experience with all Fn, the software or the API or anything like that. So coming in a little bit fresh on this to
law school. So yeah, so the open API is still being built. The version zero stuff which is mostly what's out there at the moment is not supported and not guaranteed to continue working. So we're not no one's being advised to developer against that. The version one parts of the API that are there are limited at the moment as interest just not very much if he wants to available yet. And what is technically available as of yesterday, I think it's in it's in the in the repo now. Is the product integration for DFC. So that's, that's not live yet, obviously, but it is, is there and it's coming very soon. So that's, that's probably the point. I think of commonality. And that's that's kind of where That's where we're sort of, that's where we're directing people with RFN is like, don't try and integrate direct with us. If you integrate with the FCA, you get ofin you get, you know, Uber you get other sort of platforms, other sales platforms, and hopefully coming soon, logistics platforms as well. So yeah, might be easiest. If I maybe just share
and when does DFC stand for science probably
data food consortium sorry enough to too many, too many windows. Just
Just
sorry, I'm just trying to get to point where it might actually let me
say sync Can you see something? No? Yeah, okay. So, so this is the taxonomy repository for the day food Consortium. It's this is all on GitHub, if you want to have a poke around.
And this has just been split out from the main ontology, so we've separated things out into different repositories. So we've got the main ontology which covers all of the sort of, you know, the descriptions of how everything hangs together. But then sitting off that particular product, we've got a bunch of, of taxonomies, one of which is product types, and they're displayed in RDF. Turtle, or we've got JSON files as well. And I'm just thinking actually, probably the better place to look at this as fuck bench
so we use a tool called voc bench to manage these, which is it's for managing web ontologies and particularly taxonomies. We've got a bunch of stuff in here we can edit this. So you've got dried goods, grains, seeds, processed stuff, we've got me. Could you
would you mind dropping the URL to some of these things in the chat?
Yeah, sure. Okay, so let's give you that one. Because that
should tell Juliet Nakia about bench I'm curious.
Yeah, that's what I was just thinking to. Haven't heard of this tool.
No, it's it's it's not a it's pretty obscure. It was built by the University of Rome, I think.
So it's a lot of most of the docs in in English, some of us in Italian, which isn't ideal.
For me anyway, I don't speak Italian I
struggle with my French enough with the DFC team, right okay. So that is our workbench instance.
You will need to register an account and then message just message me or we can try and get you sort of access to that. The problem with with Workbench is that it's not it doesn't allow read only access. Yeah, so we can set users up in a way that they can't edit. But, but but by default is so there is another product, which is like a viewer that you can just publish and people can browse it. But that hasn't been set up yet. So
it's still cool just to know about these tools. Maybe we can look into it for our own use.
Yeah, absolutely. But no, this is this is really, this is this is really before this, we were editing it by hand editing the audio files by hand which was particularly error prone. Yes. When you know when you've got something of this size, so yeah, so this is the product type hierarchy, which is pretty standard. It's not, it's not in any way complete. And that's something that we're very aware of, and I'm working with the UK partners in on my project project to to put what they need into this, this hierarchy. And you've, you know, the DFC team are very happy to work with with anyone who wants to sort of, you know, make enhancements to this and we've got so there's version controlling version. Now there's nothing there was on one of the other ones, I think, some facets. We'll just jump over here and I'll show you this version controlling bench. Nope. Wrong one again. Third time's the charm nope, no I think someone's committed them all. Okay. Basically, when you make a change, I could probably just do it. So yeah, so we've got various so this is the measures taxonomy. So we've got different units, currencies, quantities, we're gonna put temperature in here as well. So I can propose a new currency here. Have we got Oh, my mind's gone blank. Mexican peso.
Okay, okay. So, like I said, Can you see that's green? So that's because this is there's a commit here. I can't, I can't approve my own changes. But I can I'm just going to reject it now.
Is this built on? This is like its own database, or it's built on top of it, or what is it?
Yeah, it's built on. I can't remember. It's an RDF triple store. So it's actually using CA It uses by default. But we've got it set up to use. I think some apps, LDF store, data framework store so yeah, so it's it's storing stuff in in triples, and semantic web triples.
Okay. Yeah. And the other one that might be of interest actually. So we've got facets as well which is Lego does not improve and proof. So we've got things like certification claims, and which certifying body in this case as well. These are all French at the moment. I haven't added the UK ones in yet. Tariff territorial origin as in where it's come from in the world, and that can go right down to particularly in France, they've got a lot of they call it Denmark origin controller, so you know, protected. Terms like Cameron, there has to be made in Normandy to a certain standard that's protected. And particularly with wines and things like that, it's you know, it's all very, very regionalised. We've got pot origin as well. So which bit of the animal it came from, which is a particular probably a particular interest there. I don't know if that sort of many again, you know, it needs more, more detail. I think probably personally, I think you get to care. I thought care had more effort, but maybe not.
What about other kinds of products like you know, we're dealing with people who make cucumbers, tomato, corn. Silence.
Yeah, so So yeah, so we don't we don't have any non food products at the moment. So that would be an interesting I mean, we do deal with mean, again, you know, I personally would see a new Can I can potentially have a different scheme within this so we could put it into a different scheme for like you know, wholesale agricultural commodities or something like that. And then you could trade in, you know, grain and wholesale quantities and potentially, you know, if you wanted to see seeds, you know, like if non food seeding mixes like say hay and silage stuff like that. Cabinets, I guess there's all these kinds of things isn't know that you could be trading in. So yeah, it would potentially be possible to set that up. The yeah I didn't. Unfortunately, this all happened quite quickly, isn't it but there's there is a chap in on the DFC team in France, Maxime, who is working on a project at the moment to take the DFC standard and extend it for farmers and growers in sort of going in the other direction, you know, coming into the sort of, you know, on farm record keeping side of it. And there's, there's, there's not as yet a final decision about whether that will be fully incorporated into the into the ontology or not for the DFC, because, at the moment, the DFC is specifically focused around yeah, it's specifically focused around retailing, the food retailing of food doesn't deal with production at all. But it has always been very producer focused. So there's a sort of you know, my view is I think there's a natural kind of a natural segue there that says, we extend this slightly we gain a lot of benefits for the producers and, you know, it makes it a lot easier for for sort of, you know, folks like yourselves to sort of jump in. Yes,
we're and I mean, retail. I mean, retail is just a subset of what we're doing anyway. So it's exactly an important one for a lot of market farmers.
Well, I had a question it's like, and maybe this is for you all, but also just sort of in the domain that you live in. There's obviously a lot of like, possible but fuzzy connections between systems around these topics like everyone calls chicken chicken, it's just which chicken are you talking about? And, you know, connecting the dots, right? It's, it's sort of almost Some of it's just silly level of connecting the dots and some of it's kind of nuanced, but knowable. Like how I feel like in the past, the requirement has been, you must use these words, you know, which sometimes works, but most of the time, it's just difficult because systems don't always use the same words. Users want to create their own words, you know, then you have, you're adding complexity to the user. They have to select from a list that they don't fully understand or have context for whatever all the reasons is that I guess sort of like with kind of fuzzy logic and things available now. Like I've seen some other databases where you can just say, hey, here's my thing. Can you tell me what this probably is? Kind of thing? Like, are you going to looking at that or? Yeah,
no. Yeah, no, so so not. So the DFC as a standard is not looking at that. No. The DFC is kind of saying this is our standard. This is what you need to conform to, obviously, yes. Like, yeah, platforms are looking at that kind of stuff. Yeah. So yeah, I think we've got something along those lines is already quite a few of our fields are just sort of got some physiologic variability and in them, when you when you are in theory, selecting from a list, but again, you know, like with pharma, so, if n is quite extensible, so it sort of often says, oh, that's, that's, yeah, create a new one if you want. Just so how does to integrate with this? Yeah, like, well, perfect, doesn't worry about it too much. Because, you know, it's not, it's not you know, it's all kind of internal, isn't it? If someone wants to call, you know, their their cucumber crop cucurbits that's, that's fine. You know, if someone else wants to call it kicks, you know, queues, whatever it is, doesn't make any difference as long as you until you get to this point when you start trying to talk to another completely different platform. I mean, you know, like OB, the, the big veg box platform that we're working with in the UK, have have a rigid taxonomy. It is they literally they've got every fruit and vegetable that has ever been sold through their system into this taxonomy. And they give it to everyone at the start and they say that's what you're working with. And you have to do that. It makes it a lot easier, doesn't it?
It works when when you have those kind of fixed use cases, too, but I could see oh, a firm needs to support it in same way that always needs to support hypothetical anything pretty much often needs to be unopinionated to, but then when you get to the actual application layer, like the one you just said, Me will be Ruby. Ruby. Yeah, they need to be at the
back yard of the slot of O's. Yeah.
Yeah. Makes sense. Yeah. And I mean that but that can then track down or upstream, I guess, to, you know, for if and to connect to be than just use those terms.
Yeah. Do so. So I guess like our the question that I would have is like, it's let's just imagine what can I do to LFM? Right. So I think the goal would be, you know, your farmer last you have all this internal workings that you don't need to worry about but basically, you know how a product gets from seed to harvest. To sitting in a bitten somewhere to in a box and ready to be sold, right? That's kind of that's the experience of harmless. So you're at the outer layer. It's a bunch of things sitting in boxes waiting to be sold. And so fn in theory would want to sit over here and see query and say, Hey, what's all the things ready to be sold? Do you have perspective? I mean, we can just come up with a way that seems to make sense. I mean, it seems pretty straightforward, basically, to have like, a bunch of things that are marked as products so that an external query can say, Hey, show me all of the products available. We would say, oh, there's 20 Cucumbers, there be this 40 boxes, at least 20 packets of this, and then you would list them is that I guess just from your perspective, talk about how you think that would look and what you would expect to see and
so that is that is DFC, that is what the DFC standard does. So so what what we're looking at is, it's implemented in JSON LD. Effectively, you've got a bunch of endpoints around users, products, enterprises, a lot of the time that conformed to the ontology, and just give all of the information that you need about a product.
So you're saying data is a data standard, and there's ontological standards. Okay, okay. Sorry. I need to go look at that.
Yeah, no, no, that's cool. Yeah. Yeah, if you, let me just so.
Just published in the chat to get a match
you just using the little red.in the middle of your IBM ThinkPad that's that's my favorite. I still know people doing that. But there's so good.
Yeah, I've got a little touchpad which, which was was great when I was just working on the screen of the laptop. But like, few weeks ago, I was like, you know, I'm sick of China's like to look at 47,000 different windows. So I've got a nice nice shiny big monitor. Great.
I can tell was this big? Wow. Yeah.
Yeah. So yeah, it's
no, that's nice. I see some technical specifications, bro. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
Yeah, this isn't very up to date. I don't think I mean, it's not changed massively but it's also just not. It's not the clearest. What, what I what I so what I did was I wrote just a little implementation guide effectively for our partners and prospective partners in the UK. So that describes in a bit more detail what we're asking platforms that are joining the standard to do. So that might be a little bit clearer, because it's little things like the semantic standard. Well, the technical standard defines sort of a user management sort of policy. So we're using Open ID Connect. Yeah, to manage sort of user identities across different platforms. So all the platforms are connecting to the same open Id already seek provider to and just asking users to authenticate against that. So they're either creating an account or using an existing account, and then they link that account across each of the different platforms and that gives them the ability to share data secure, securely between between the different platforms.
We've totally been talking about that within open team two. It's like yeah, and I think people came to a lot of the same conclusions. Like we actually tried to implement a key cloak server, but the problem is you can't. It was basically unimplemented offline. It does not work offline. So ours was an offline application. So it was just like, well, that's not gonna work. So great technology. But anyway, anyway, for Mike that's less relevant. Because CMOS is an online only application. Did you catch that mic?
No, sorry. I just had a delivery arrived. So I missed all that. Sorry.
He was walking through, look at the latest link. What does it mean to implement? And then he was just saying that the first step is sort of using this open ID Connect, which is like a key cloak server to authorize against whatever partners are sharing data, which is we've been talking a lot about in open team as well. And actually people came occlusion of trying to use key cloak I was just saying that it doesn't work we tried to implement in SaltStack for the last like, month and a half it was supposed to take a week. And then they got to the end of it. Like was doesn't work offline, basically. So for our application, we couldn't do it. But for firm OS, you could because you're online. Okay. Yep. Sorry. Yeah.
Yeah. So so. So there's the sort of user interface side of it, which gives you a common sort of identity across the different platforms, basically, which is what Open ID connect us. Pretty sure there's a Drupal module that you can just plug in, you know, the login with Facebook, login with Google, all that old stuff. Same thing. All the same tech, so that'll be fairly painless to implement. I keep telling people that and it never is, but now, that's not true. We had one partner who implemented it in a couple of days actually, that was but they were they had someone who done it a lot to get done it the previous places. They were very
fun to do this at the USDA, because they have their they have their own authorization server, essentially.
Right. Yeah. Was it the same kind or was it significantly different?
I know Yeah, it was it was open ID. I mean, it was all right. Yeah, we use the Open ID connect Drupal module.
Not that you could ever see that code or use it, but at least you know, it was done.
So we, I might have missed the context here. So what we're, yeah,
so Greg, Greg was asking about, about what the interface might look like between our fan and farmer s from a product perspective. I was saying that's DFC. That's why he is very proud of what we are implementing that, you know, yes. Like this. This, this is the standard that we're aligning to as Open Food Network. And that's what we're encouraging other people to align with, to to interface with us because it's just simple and powerful. And we don't all have to build specific API's to and work with our own specific API Interfaces. We build one interface and we get all the other platforms that are on this standard as well.
And I just copied in one of the elements from that, which seems most relevant, which is create and publish a credit API for products, a bulk gift for all products, create an individual product, read an individual product, blah, blah, blah. Right, yeah, that's the work basically.
That's the work yeah. The other thing to mention is that so obviously deaf See, you've got this owl ontology, which is pretty difficult to understand if you're not a semantic web developer. And pretty difficult to interface with most of standard software platforms. So what what we've also been doing and what DFC have done is they've got what they're calling the connector library. And I can share some some more links to this as well, but that is, it's built in accelero, which is like an eclipse Java framework. That's a code generator. So they've built this and it generates a set a set of classes libraries from a UML model, basically. So we convert the ontology into a UML model. And then we generate a code library effectively. So we've got one in TypeScript at the moment. We've got one in Ruby. We will almost certainly have one in PHP very soon because we've got one possibly two platforms in the UK Laravel. PHP. That will be using it. So that would so there would be some custom development obviously from from a farmer's perspective, you wouldn't be able to use off the Patriot stuff for this. Unless you developed enough the Patriot module for it. That would be an option I guess, but we have got a all we say, we potentially will have in the next few months. trying hard not to put timescales on these things. Not committing to anything we should have a PHP library library. That will allow you to sort of create model objects that relate to the DFC ontology. So you can just say create product, create DFC dot product, and it will create you a DFC product object and then you populate it with whatever you want. And then there's an export and import function as well. So you can read in from DFC, and you can write out into the JSON LD.
Ah, that's awesome. And yeah, I mean, if that's, if that's just a reusable PHP library, we can make a glue Drupal module around that pretty easily, I think
that's similar kind of to like the serializer that
Yeah, exactly. So right so Drupal has this concept of serializer plugins. So you can take any entity object in the ORM model of Drupal and serialize it as a different as different things so we can serialize things as JSON as XML. We could have a, we could have a DFC serializer perhaps for our products, you know, to say, hey, print this out as print this product asset as a JSON LD output or something like that.
And what is the I guess? There's a very practical safety net flat by But practically, we're at a point where obviously, we're not going to be implementing this whole thing right now. It's good to know where you're at. So if we do, maybe the summer actually would be a good time when we get to the I don't know we could talk to pass them out or whatever. But But as we're where we're at right now, is we're just deciding how to structure products within from iOS. So we don't want to break anything when we get to that point, and we want to ensure that we have at least a minimum required information for us. So it's nice to know that there's the serialization because it means we have this, you know, layer of cartilage so that it's okay if things move around. But we have to have the minimum stuff. So like, what is that?
It actually sounds like, it sounds like we're, again, I'm kind of coming on that we're on convergent paths. It's almost like we're two boats that are now we're now close enough together that we can like shout to each other. And say what, we're where we're headed. But yeah, I mean, it sounds you know, we want to support a huge amount of flexibility on our end, and oof, and I think, does as well in other words, like, you know, not really restricting stuff too much. So as long as we can, and that's a that's a good thing. I think we're so in other words, it feels to me like, we're going to be heading in that direction anyways. And maybe we'll start to develop some more standards together as we get closer along and there's more real use cases. But yeah, I mean, it sounds like the main thing is if we want to be able to communicate to OFM that there's a product for sale, that's already possible, like we can we can pretty much do that. Right. Like we can say
what's Yeah, yeah. If if if you had this this DFC interface was going to send so this so I sent the link a little bit ago up to the to the documentation to get documentation. This is an appendix to it, which actually has an example piece of JSON LD, you can look at that. So that's the kind of bits of information that we need in it. In terms of what's mandatory, very little is mandatory. You need an ID basically, I think that's a type. I think that's probably about it. That pretty much everything else is optional. But it is it is slightly complex. The idea the thing I haven't shown you Oh, it's in here. No, it's fine. I'll send you another link to a bit the page in the get book that has a link that has a yeah, there we go. That one we've got a pictorial representation of the ontology, which is quite out of date at the moment, actually, it's about three years old. It hasn't changed massively, but it is being updated at the moment. So that will be up to date. There's just a few tweaks around orders and there's actually been a slightly significant change around that we're working on the logistics. The logistics stuff, we've had made some changes around. Address and deliveries and stuff like that. But
yeah, so when you say type is the only thing what is type? I just want to make sure that
you know what it is yeah, sorry, as in a name, a JSON LD object type effectively. Yeah, so so if you create I've lost I've got a link here. There we go. So yeah, if you see in that, that graph object, there's an ID and then a type. Yeah. So it says a person ID and the type is person, D FCB. person. So it references the DF CP is the prefix for the business ontology. DFC business oncology. Okay. Yeah. So it's telling you it's a person from the DHCP ontology, and it has all the attributes that that has, so it has names and addresses and same with enterprise further down, there's an enterprise type of enterprise
the time you get into the actual product data, eventually
Yeah, I was gonna say Greg search for like, search for product or supply product is the limit. I'm looking at
it Yeah. So put supplied product is.
Actually that has to be in the ontology in from your ontological list, the supplied product item.
The product type within it is is validated. Yeah. So there's stuff that we're looking at on Workbench those taxonomies so the product type, territorial origin, again I don't want to misspeak here. I can't remember if product type is optional or not product type might not be optional. Now it is. It is you can or maybe it's non optional, but you can leave it blank. I can't remember.
So like things like the units and that kind of stuff. Those are those are not required. They're validated, but they're not required, but
they're not required. No. Yeah.
Okay. Okay.
I think I mean, it depends on what we use unit a lot. All over the place. So I think sometimes it might be a required
field. So one thing we have been thinking about is like how to separate the product type and the and then the different types of packaging of that product to do you know any how often ontology sandaled out are how they split those out?
So yeah, so I mean, so the way DFC split that up is so we've got like, so we've got product type, and then we've got the facets which talk about share my screen again.
And so like this kind of 10 pound box of carrots idea, right? What just as an example, would the product type be carrot, and then you have other facets for
so you've got container, which tells you what kind of container is a barrel? Is it a sack? Is it loose wherever? Yeah. You've also got I think it's under I think it's actually in units measures. Yet and measures isn't it? I think we've got no, it's not in measures must be a facet somewhere Sorry.
It's completely it must be measured. So yeah, it's a quantity unit. So we've, we've got these quantity units. And they're obviously you've got, you know, different sized packs, bags, baskets, crates, buckets, you know everything you can think of bulk liquid. Weirdly, obviously wait. kilometres guess if you're dealing with cabling or something like you might have a basically,
your data units field includes. It includes all your standard units like kilometers meters inches, but then it includes these kind of like special units, which are like boxes. And then do you have fields for a box, which tells you down to some base, do you have some sort of the concept that I was thinking about was you have these base units of volume weight count, right? It's like a limited, I don't know, four things maybe. And then you have a bunch of stuff like boxes, bags, lalalalala. And they always reference a base unit. So you understand.
That's only really if you need to do conversions, though not, and conversions aren't really all always necessary or Well, that's true down the line. Maybe they're not necessary. Yeah. Especially when you're selling stuff, you know, you're not going to be you're not going to a lot of the times you won't offer the flexibility to say here I will convert my box into bags already taken.
So So one of the partners we're working with in the UK is Hoggard OD and they are a sort of bean and grain supplier. So they retail but they also supply wholesale and they specialize in like kind of local heirloom locally grown varieties around from around the UK. And they so they do so this this has come up, this splitting of cases has come up because they sell cases on a wholesale basis and bags on a retail basis. And the same customer can potentially be ordering both things, but actually what what we're doing is and this is not part of the ontology, but this is just logic that's being implemented on at the platform level, is we're saying to, you know, to them, that they've implemented some of some fields in there that says A case has because it varies sometimes it's six, sometimes it's 10. Sometimes it's 12 bags in a case, you know, great. So they've they're tracking how many bags are in a case and they're linking to the other products that the retail product underneath it. So if it's a 500 gram bag of beans, then you know you've got a case that's got six and they know that and so it so because the the what's going to happen is that the retail orders will come in on our fan or whatever platform they will get six retail orders. It will add a case to their wholesale order. And they get the seventh one election I mean, and we're actually giving them an option to round up around and basically so it will either be don't order the case until I've sold it all or order it as soon as I've sold part of it. So, yeah, that there is complexity in there. And the ontology can handle it. But it's not. We're not building in specific logic for it within the ontology of certain platforms.
That's great. That's actually great. So Mike, I'm gonna I'm gonna restate what I feel like I'm hearing you tell me if I heard this right. It sounds to me like one. Your current units list includes not only standard units like kilograms and pounds, but essentially almost any kind of unit like boxes and bags. Okay. You don't worry about conversions, which means if we're going to convert things that would be for our purposes, we would manage it we don't really have to worry about that. Putting in John's logical structure, we just have to know we shipping five boxes of peaches and that's all so and there's a minimal amount of information required, which probably will have to be manually matched to your ontology from the products that we create internally. If someone says they sold five pounds of chicken meat, we may have to specify it was thigh meat in your ontology list. That may be something that a user has to go in.
You can just specify as chicken I mean, this is it's a total hierarchy. So we can choose that higher thing if we want. You could just go up if if because there are quite a lot of gaps in it. I mean, yeah, yeah, it this the hierarchy was created just by importing it from one French platform. One sales platform. There you go. That's, that's what is your starting point is not complete. So we are enhancing it and we're, it's you know, it's all optional. And we can default to higher levels.
And so maybe, maybe a farmer last DFC module could basically add a drop down field to all of our product type terms. That's, you know, DFC product type. So you could you could match them up one to one. And if there isn't one in 11 in DFC, that's fine. You know, maybe that we can
write an email saying, yeah,
yeah, exactly. We've Well, I mean, you know, we can get, we can get someone from formulas or some some of your team on top bench, they can make suggestions, they can add product stuff, we can incorporate it and publish it. You know, that's, we've got a process for doing
we would love to do that. Or maybe that would be a thing that we could get through involved in. I don't actually know, we should think about that. Because it'd be useful.
Yeah, I mean, it's been mixed with us. Some of the partners that we're working with in the UK are like you just just here's a spreadsheet you sorted out and sorted out was there on park bench there? They're making the changes they want to make, you know, so yes, either way works.
Now, I'm less nervous about this whole thing. Yeah. That's cool.
That you know, this as well doing the same thing
No, thanks. Thanks a lot. Garethe
Yes, super helpful. Yeah, and I don't know make sure we like write up an issue. I feel like if I don't take notes right now, I'm just gonna like it's all gonna disappear.
to that forum topic he made say, because that Jamie, Jamie's last comment was suggesting that we talked to Garethe
Yeah, that's okay. I'll add it to it. Is it okay if I kind of like post a link to the transcript to this at least to in there directly. I know that's very public ish, but you didn't say anything bad about anybody.
I don't think we need to do it. I'm trying to remember.
All right. Cool. Okay, I'll do that.
Okay, cool. All right. Well,
until our ships are a little bit closer, we'll see you. Take care.