philosophy of protocol

[Tim Bergsma]

Peter,

This one is strictly theoretical.

I quite agreed with your reminder yesterday that protocols are
abstract.  It's rather poetic that one must declare an instance of
method in order to link a protocol to a dataset in eml.  In some sense,
it seems reasonable that a protocol should not be inherently linked to
any one data set.  What I'm struggling with is the generality of
protocols.

How can I think about the following instance?  I have a weather station
LTERWS, and I have a weather dataset for LTERWS.  I keep a log of my
activity at the station (methods).  Some months ago, I wrote a protocol
for how to conduct weekly maintenance visits to LTERWS.  I'm convinced
that the protocol is abstract and descriptive, even generalized across
weeks, but I can't help feeling that there is an inherent connection
between the LTERWS protocol and the LTERWS dataset.

Similarly, we have lots of other protocols that are written explictly
for a certain place and project, implictly for a certain dataset.  Some
are even prescriptions for one-time events (e.g. Spring 2002 fertilizer
application protocol).  Am I using the concept of protocol more broadly
than eml intends?  Supports?

Tim.


-- 
Tim Bergsma
LTER Information Manager
W.K. Kellogg Biological Station
Michigan State University
Hickory Corners, MI   49060
616/671-2337
tbergsma at kbs.msu.edu
http://lter.kbs.msu.edu