Jeff Horsburgh

@smrgeoinfo - my [comment from earlier](137#issuecomment-311075692) about grouping things by "datasets" rather than trying to do everything via "actions" may be relevant here too.

@aufdenkampe - I'm not opposed to making these adjustments. But, I'm just not sure this is high priority at the moment. I am not saying this is not an important...

@aufdenkampe - also, what about just Specimens that are SamplingFeatures, but have no latitude and longitude? This is why we separated Sites and Specimens from SamplingFeatures in the first place....

I specifically chose the Name field for the PK/FK relaitonship because the names are for human consumption. I want the names to appear throughout an ODM2 database in the CV...

@aufdenkampe - is there an example of where you would use a different NoDataValue for one instance of a variable versus another instance of that variable (e.g., one result versus...

@PleiadesAustralia - if the current result types don't meet your needs, why not define a new result type? We always intended result types to be extensible. Would you call it...

@PleiadesAustralia - I don't think any of us have worked specifically on chain of custody tracking using ODM2. Keep in mind the ActionTypeCV could be modified to accommodate new use...

I'm guessing ODM2 doesn't have everything you are wanting to fully parse out your chain of custody information into separate fields. @aufdenkampe started some batch related work in the LabAnalysis...

@smrgeoinfo - you might also consider grouping results from a project/initiative/expedition/cruise into a Dataset.

Sam - we used UUIDs for a small number of things in ODM2 because we wanted those identifiers to be unique regardless of where they went. For example, if we...