Protocol tool - VWSL

[lornalittle]

1. As a hydrological scientist, I need a tool to define a protocol for a new experiment so that it can be shared on the VWSL with other scientists. (Like the workflow below)

[lornalittle]

2. As a hydrological scientist, I need to edit my already existing protocol so that it can be a living document throughout the experiment (shared with other collaborating scientists).

[lornalittle]

3. As a hydrological scientist, I want to upload the final (not-editable) version of my living protocol so that it can be reviewed by other scientists.

[lornalittle]

Fields that should be filled in (related to first userstory above):

And:

[beekhuiz]

Mockup of the start screen where users can see an overview of all the 'ongoing' experiment protocols and can add a new protocol, edit existing protocols or publish (how? needed?) a protocol.

[beekhuiz]

First basic (almost working version) of the protocol. I will continue working on the dynamic form elements, such as adding multiple partners or experiment steps. We should first focus on what data should be stored by the form.

[lornalittle]

Looks great! All the data entered should be stored. From my user perspective, 2) Data requirements, 3) Experiment execution, and 4) Result reporting and format should be editable. These three sections should be editable under the 'Participate' page of the VWSL (related to userstory 2 above).

[lornalittle]

Experiment execution steps should also include - responsible partner, deadline (for each step).

[lornalittle]

Data requirements - each data set needs all four fields. Can we have a button to 'add new data requirements' and it includes the four fields.

[lornalittle]

Add a date to show which version is shown in the edit/publish section, and/OR when edits are made, an email is automatically sent to the lead partner, highlighting the section that was updated.

[rcapell]

Examples for the "Data requirements" section:

• discharge time series for one or several sites, properties then could include information on time series length, other necessary metadata, additional files (eg a location shape file)...
• a model tool, properties are then version number or certain model routines to be included in the distributed version

It might actually be better to call the section "Experient requirements"?, because partners could have responsibility to contribute with model code or other contributions which are not exactly "data".

[albertomontanari]

It is indeed great! I suggest some modifications in the picture below, please see if you agree. Thanks! Alberto

[lornalittle]

Yes, I agree with Alberto's modifications. Thank you!!

[lornalittle]

Note: the '(eg. data collection, scripts, models, tools)' should be written in grey suggestion text in the description box.

The '+ add more' should bring up everything included in the *range

[lornalittle]

Note: Should be 3) Experiment Execution Steps (not 2))