There was the question can we and should we pull certain elements out of the procedure definitions to be their own concepts.
I reviewed the procedure defs across the procedures - the sub-headers have some similarities across the procedures - they include 'reagents', 'procedure', 'notes' and 'calculations'.
But these are not consistent across the chapters. Some examples -
'reagents/apparatus'
'special apparatus'
'procedure - saline soils', 'procedure non-saline soils'
'calculation - saline soils', 'calculation non-saline soils'
'additional reagents'
'procedure - field', 'procedure - lab'
There are some cases where in the procedure def they cross-ref to a part of another procedure's def - eg a 'procedure' or 'reagents'
Personally I can't see the value/immediate need for pulling these parts out by their sub-headers as separate concepts.
Has anyone seen the demand for this? Are people wanting to re-use these parts to make new protocols/procedures?
They could be pulled out later as separate concepts (e.g. 'reagents', 'procedure', 'notes' and 'calculations') if the need is identified.
Thoughts? @ljgregory