Agriculture Operation
Describe a bounded dossier of managed agricultural activity, its production context, interventions, observations and output evidence.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
7 bundles · 14 layers · 14 findings · 56 questions
Management scope Identify the dossier and bind its operational footprint.
Dossier identity and responsibility
The dossier boundary is a local design choice informed by management and activity concepts. Its identity persists across revisions; official holding numbers are optional references, never assumed universal.
Dossier identity and responsibility
The dossier boundary is a local design choice informed by management and activity concepts. Its identity persists across revisions; official holding numbers are optional references, never assumed universal.
- Which stable dossier identifier and management scope distinguish this programme from a holding, season or individual act? identity
- Which agricultural activity classes and crop or husbandry modules apply to this dossier? classification
- Who holds management, custody and record-stewardship roles for the covered interval? ownership
- What mandate permits the recorder and contractors to act on this operation record? authority
Effective work areas
Work areas are management scopes rather than cadastral facts. Landless husbandry, mobile groups, covered growing spaces and changing boundaries require explicit location and applicability states.
Effective work areas
Work areas are management scopes rather than cadastral facts. Landless husbandry, mobile groups, covered growing spaces and changing boundaries require explicit location and applicability states.
- Where was the work performed and which version of the managed-area geometry applies? spatial
- How does the work area relate to parcels, soil records, facilities or mobile locations? relationship
- What evidence supports access to the production space without asserting legal title? constraint
- Which area measure was used and how are overlapping or successive uses counted? measurement
Crop activity Distinguish crop management cycles from living crop stands.
Crop cycle and plan
A management cycle links one or more cultivated-organism references to activity windows. Perennial, intercropped and repeated-cropping cases need explicit cycle boundaries; an annual calendar is not mandatory.
Crop cycle and plan
A management cycle links one or more cultivated-organism references to activity windows. Perennial, intercropped and repeated-cropping cases need explicit cycle boundaries; an annual calendar is not mandatory.
- Which crop stands, fields and management subcycles participate in this campaign? composition
- What planned and actual windows define the management cycle, including repeated or perennial harvests? temporal
- What is the current crop-work state and what evidence supports it? state
- How are failed establishment, abandonment or mixed cropping represented without inventing a harvest? exception
Recorded crop interventions
An intervention assertion distinguishes proposed work from observed completion. Inputs and restriction references document what was recorded; this model provides no treatment instructions or application authority.
Recorded crop interventions
An intervention assertion distinguishes proposed work from observed completion. Inputs and restriction references document what was recorded; this model provides no treatment instructions or application authority.
- Which agricultural act occurred, on what target, and with what actual completion evidence? event
- How does the completed intervention relate to its request or planned work? process
- Who reported the intervention and was the record observed, imported or reconstructed? provenance
- Which approved-use or protected-area policy references and specialist decisions apply to the recorded intervention? constraint
Husbandry activity Represent care and collection episodes while retaining organism masters.
Episode population and movement links
Programme scope may use individual or group identification. Effective membership and establishment links support event interpretation without changing an official register or assuming all animals are individually tagged.
Episode population and movement links
Programme scope may use individual or group identification. Effective membership and establishment links support event interpretation without changing an official register or assuming all animals are individually tagged.
- Which individual or group identifiers bind the husbandry episode and who issued them? identity
- Which effective membership interval determines the animals covered by a recorded act? temporal
- Which movement records explain changes of establishment or seasonal grazing location? relationship
- How are lost tags, disputed identity or group splits handled without silently merging animals? exception
Care evidence and specialist restrictions
Care evidence links husbandry acts, feed provenance and specialist records. Health or welfare concerns and product restrictions are represented at policy level; the dossier cannot diagnose, prescribe or declare an animal fit.
Care evidence and specialist restrictions
Care evidence links husbandry acts, feed provenance and specialist records. Health or welfare concerns and product restrictions are represented at policy level; the dossier cannot diagnose, prescribe or declare an animal fit.
- Which care or feeding act was reported for the episode population? event
- What specialist or laboratory evidence is linked to the reported care concern? evidence
- Which authority-issued restriction or withdrawal decision covers the affected animals and outputs? constraint
- Who is responsible for reviewing a welfare concern or completing a required notification? authority
Resources and observation Bind agricultural inputs and observations to their actual uses.
Input and resource allocations
Resource-use assertions distinguish receipt, allocation and reported consumption. Water, feed, planting material, nutrients, equipment and labour are linked as applicable; availability does not prove actual use.
Input and resource allocations
Resource-use assertions distinguish receipt, allocation and reported consumption. Water, feed, planting material, nutrients, equipment and labour are linked as applicable; availability does not prove actual use.
- Which input lots, water sources, equipment or workforce assignments supported the agricultural acts? composition
- What quantities were actually used and on what measurement basis? measurement
- Which discrepancies separate received, allocated, unused and consumed inputs? quality
- Which competency, availability or use-permission evidence was required by the adopting profile? requirement
Conditions and measurement context
Observation references attach evidence to the relevant work area or population. A nearby reading does not establish exposure across the entire operation; estimated, measured and inferred values remain distinct.
Conditions and measurement context
Observation references attach evidence to the relevant work area or population. A nearby reading does not establish exposure across the entire operation; estimated, measured and inferred values remain distinct.
- What property, unit and method describe the observation associated with this work? measurement
- When did the observed condition occur and when was its result recorded or received? temporal
- What evidence supports applying this observation to the target field or animal group? spatial
- Which calibration, uncertainty, missingness or conflicting result limits interpretation? quality
Output evidence Connect collection acts to traceable products and qualified measures.
Harvest and recurring collection lineage
Harvest and recurring collection link agricultural acts to externally identified output lots. A collection may span several sources and may be split or mixed; the operation dossier does not become an inventory ledger.
Harvest and recurring collection lineage
Harvest and recurring collection link agricultural acts to externally identified output lots. A collection may span several sources and may be split or mixed; the operation dossier does not become an inventory ledger.
- Which harvest or recurring collection act generated the reported output? event
- How are output lots linked to source areas or animals and later split or mixed lots? relationship
- What segregation or restriction state was reported for each output portion? state
- Where does the agricultural handover end and which downstream master accepts the output? interoperability
Yield, quality and loss assertions
Collection measures and derived yields retain their calculation basis. Failed crops, repeated collections and withheld portions remain visible; a measured quantity or quality label does not establish safety or market release.
Yield, quality and loss assertions
Collection measures and derived yields retain their calculation basis. Failed crops, repeated collections and withheld portions remain visible; a measured quantity or quality label does not establish safety or market release.
- What harvested or collected quantity was measured and under which conditions? measurement
- What denominator and time window support a reported yield without double counting collections? validation
- Which grading or test reference supports the reported output quality? quality
- What unharvested, lost, retained or rejected output is known and what remains unaccounted for? exception
Assurance and exceptions Bind scoped decisions and hazards without claiming universal compliance.
Applicable obligations and decision evidence
Requirements are versioned profile inputs. Food and nonfood outputs, jurisdiction, species and operation type change applicability. Missing evidence is unknown, never an automatic pass.
Applicable obligations and decision evidence
Requirements are versioned profile inputs. Food and nonfood outputs, jurisdiction, species and operation type change applicability. Missing evidence is unknown, never an automatic pass.
- Which jurisdiction and activity profile determine the requirements for this operation? requirement
- What competent decision evaluates a restriction or permission for a specific target and time? decision
- Which exemption, conflicting rule or unresolved applicability issue remains open? exception
- What evidence is still needed before the record can support an assurance claim? validation
Hazard and corrective-action references
The dossier records concerns about contamination, biosecurity, welfare, environmental effects or worker exposure at policy level. It links competent response records; a local closure does not prove a hazard was eliminated.
Hazard and corrective-action references
The dossier records concerns about contamination, biosecurity, welfare, environmental effects or worker exposure at policy level. It links competent response records; a local closure does not prove a hazard was eliminated.
- What observed concern or incident affects the operation and how reliable is the report? evidence
- Which response procedure and assigned role govern follow-up of this concern? process
- What outstanding corrective evidence prevents closing the local concern record? state
- Which sensitive locations, worker details or animal-health records require restricted disclosure? security
Reporting and continuity Prepare limited projections and preserve attributable corrections.
Reporting and sharing projections
Statistical, advisory and traceability views have different purposes and scopes. Preparing a view neither files a return nor grants access to the whole farm record. Excluded or unknown data must be visible.
Reporting and sharing projections
Statistical, advisory and traceability views have different purposes and scopes. Preparing a view neither files a return nor grants access to the whole farm record. Excluded or unknown data must be visible.
- Which receiving schema and vocabulary versions define this export? interoperability
- Which recipient and purpose authorize the proposed disclosure? access
- Which reference period and aggregation rules prevent the view from double counting area, animals or output? validation
- What export manifest identifies the exact records and redactions used? provenance
Record correction, closure and retention
Record lifecycle and real-world activity are distinct. Corrections preserve attribution and supersession while retention policy limits personal or sensitive payloads. Closing a dossier does not close an official register or authorize produce release.
Record correction, closure and retention
Record lifecycle and real-world activity are distinct. Corrections preserve attribution and supersession while retention policy limits personal or sensitive payloads. Closing a dossier does not close an official register or authorize produce release.
- What evidence justifies closing, reopening or superseding the operation dossier? lifecycle
- Which prior assertion is corrected and how are affected reports identified? provenance
- What retention rule or hold governs each local record and linked artifact? retention
- What approved redaction or erasure preserves only the lawful minimum of reference continuity? privacy
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- World Models
- Category
- Activities and processes
- Entry kind
- aggregate
- Navigation path
- NAV.ACT.AGR
- Domain
- ACT.AGR
- Industry
- Cross-industry
- Tags
- agricultureoperationact.agr
- Also called
- K9
What it is Filled
One operation dossier groups agricultural work for a declared management scope and interval. It may cover a crop campaign, a husbandry episode or a mixed programme, including planned, partial, failed and completed work. It owns the dossier and activity-specific assertions, not the permanent holding, living organism, land, product or official register. Child activity references retain their own identities. This is a proposed research aggregate, not an execution engine or the statistical holding itself.
In scope
- Management scope, responsible roles, effective site/field bindings and applicable crop or husbandry modules
- Production-cycle references, intervention evidence, resource allocations and environmental observation links
- Harvest and recurring collection evidence, loss and output lineage, restriction decisions, reporting views and local record continuity
Out of scope
- Biological identity, taxonomy and full lifecycle of crop stands, animals and herds; land title, soil and facility masters
- Manufacturing, commercial inventory, logistics, finance and official animal/holding registers
- Agronomic prescriptions, dosing, veterinary diagnosis, machinery control, safety certification, disease-control execution and legal compliance determinations
- Detailed forestry, capture fisheries, aquaculture and species-specific specialist profiles; private gardens are not excluded merely by size, but need an adopting profile
Why it exists Filled
Describe a bounded dossier of managed agricultural activity, its production context, interventions, observations and output evidence.
Distinguishing features Derived, awaiting review
- Unlike WM-LIV-009 Cultivated Organism: The shared K9 legacy material is reconciled by keeping managed work here and organism identity and biological state in the separately registered sibling. A season or operation is not an organism; dated membership references are evidence snapshots, not a second animal registry.
- Unlike WM-PLC-002 Land Parcel; WM-EAR-003 Soil; WM-BLT-008 Site / Campus: Managed work areas reference external land, soil and facility records; management polygons may cross parcels or change over time. Tenure evidence does not create title. The legacy P5 Site alias is not reused because the current registry assigns P5 elsewhere.
- Unlike WM-ACT-002 Act; WM-ACT-008 Plan / Schedule: The root aggregates activity evidence and subject-specific crop/husbandry context. Atomic acts and schedules retain separate identities; no universal Act inheritance or scheduling implementation is claimed.
- Unlike WM-ACT-010 Production Run; WM-FLW-003 Food Supply Chain; WM-OBJ-004 Food Product: Agricultural output links end at the declared handover. Processing, product masters and supply-chain events remain external. On-farm location alone does not make an activity primary production, and collection need not imply processing.
- Unlike WM-PER-001 Person; WM-ORG-001 Organization; WM-XCT-001 Ownership / Stewardship; WM-XCT-002 Access Contract / Consent; WM-XCT-004 Access Audit: Hold role assignments and policy references here. Legal ownership, consent evaluation and access-audit execution belong to their masters. Management, custody, data stewardship and land ownership are separate roles.
Note: Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.
What robots and AI may and may not do Derived, awaiting review
Must not
- A clean record, passed schema, elapsed date or closed dossier cannot prove safe product release or legal compliance
- Deny disclosure unless an applicable scoped policy permits the authenticated recipient and purpose.
May
- Open an operation dossier: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create the bounded local aggregate with selected modules and declared unknowns.
- Bind effective production context: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Attach revision-qualified work areas, crop-cycle and population references.
- Record agricultural work evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append an evidence-qualified assertion about a crop or husbandry act.
- Link observation and resource evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Associate supplied measurements and resource-use claims with the relevant work.
- Prepare output lineage view: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Traverse supplied collection and lot links to show known origins and missing edges.
- Prepare a scoped operation report: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Build a proposed statistical, advisory or traceability projection under an explicit mapping.
- Correct or close the local dossier: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append a reasoned correction or local lifecycle decision and identify dependent views.
Note: Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.
Moral aspects Derived, awaiting review
- Controlled inputs, treatments, biosecurity and harmful interventions remain policy and evidence references; do not supply prescriptions or executable instructions
- Retiring a dossier does not delete external organism, land, product, official register or audit masters; minimize personal data in retained continuity records
- Detailed agronomy, water rights, nutrient balances, emissions accounting, worker safety, welfare and disease policy need qualified specialist profiles
- Child activity references retain their own identities.
- WM-XCT-002 Access Contract / Consent;
- Legal ownership, consent evaluation and access-audit execution belong to their masters.
Note: Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.
Owners Filled
Steward
Identify the responsible farming person or organization and separate record steward, manager, land owner and keeper roles
Roles
- Operation manager
- Declare scope and accountable roles; review work completeness without substituting for specialist authority
- Record steward
- Resolve identity and provenance; manage local corrections and retention-policy bindings
- Recorder or contractor
- Submit attributable work evidence within delegated scope; mark unknowns and estimates
- Qualified specialist
- Review applicable agronomic, veterinary, safety or regulatory questions within actual competence
- Evidence reviewer
- Inspect contradictory inputs, missing trace links and mapping losses
- Authorized recipient
- Use only the permitted projection and purpose; preserve qualifiers
Links to other meta-models Filled
references
- WM-LIV-009 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference crop stands and farm animals; retain biological identity and lifecycle in their own master.
- WM-PLC-002 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference parcels intersecting effective management areas; this dossier does not establish title.
- WM-EAR-003 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference soil characterization and sampling records; do not own soil state or its observation lifecycle.
- WM-BLT-008 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference facilities and sites as operational context, using the current model ID instead of the ambiguous legacy alias.
- WM-ACT-002 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference atomic acts with their own identities and authority; aggregate only agriculture-specific evidence.
- WM-ACT-008 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference plans and schedules; no scheduling engine or mandatory seasonal end date.
- WM-ACT-010 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference downstream processing runs after a declared boundary handover.
- WM-FLW-003 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference downstream food-chain events; do not duplicate logistics, recall or inventory functions.
- WM-OBJ-004 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference food output product masters when applicable; agriculture can also yield nonfood outputs.
- WM-PER-001 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference people in management, workforce or stewardship roles without reproducing their profiles.
- WM-ORG-001 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference responsible organizations without treating management as ownership of every resource.
- WM-XCT-001 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference stewardship and ownership policy; local role bindings do not adjudicate title.
- WM-XCT-002 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference recipient-specific access and consent decisions; do not implement their evaluation.
- WM-XCT-004 - Proposed optional binding, not a registry-ledger edge. Reference access-audit receipts; the audit trail is mastered by the external audit service.
aligned
- AGROVOC - Concept mapping only; record release, language and unmatched terms.
- GS1 EPCIS - Proposed visibility-event mapping only; retain declared schema version and correction semantics.
- OGC SensorThings API 1.1 - Proposed observation linkage only; preserve source timestamps and clock-assignment qualifications.
- W3C PROV-O - Proposed provenance mapping only; attribution and revision do not certify truth.
neighbor
- WM-LIV-009 Cultivated Organism - The shared K9 legacy material is reconciled by keeping managed work here and organism identity and biological state in the separately registered sibling. A season or operation is not an organism; dated membership references are evidence snapshots, not a second animal registry.
- WM-PLC-002 Land Parcel; WM-EAR-003 Soil; WM-BLT-008 Site / Campus - Managed work areas reference external land, soil and facility records; management polygons may cross parcels or change over time. Tenure evidence does not create title. The legacy P5 Site alias is not reused because the current registry assigns P5 elsewhere.
- WM-ACT-002 Act; WM-ACT-008 Plan / Schedule - The root aggregates activity evidence and subject-specific crop/husbandry context. Atomic acts and schedules retain separate identities; no universal Act inheritance or scheduling implementation is claimed.
- WM-ACT-010 Production Run; WM-FLW-003 Food Supply Chain; WM-OBJ-004 Food Product - Agricultural output links end at the declared handover. Processing, product masters and supply-chain events remain external. On-farm location alone does not make an activity primary production, and collection need not imply processing.
- WM-PER-001 Person; WM-ORG-001 Organization; WM-XCT-001 Ownership / Stewardship; WM-XCT-002 Access Contract / Consent; WM-XCT-004 Access Audit - Hold role assignments and policy references here. Legal ownership, consent evaluation and access-audit execution belong to their masters. Management, custody, data stewardship and land ownership are separate roles.
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer and namespace
- Governed global identifier or IRI
- Dimension-assigned UUID or ULID with alias reconciliation
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.
Recognition optional Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Open an operation dossier: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create the bounded local aggregate with selected modules and declared unknowns.
- Bind effective production context: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Attach revision-qualified work areas, crop-cycle and population references.
- Record agricultural work evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append an evidence-qualified assertion about a crop or husbandry act.
- Link observation and resource evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Associate supplied measurements and resource-use claims with the relevant work.
- Prepare output lineage view: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Traverse supplied collection and lot links to show known origins and missing edges.
- Prepare a scoped operation report: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Build a proposed statistical, advisory or traceability projection under an explicit mapping.
- Correct or close the local dossier: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append a reasoned correction or local lifecycle decision and identify dependent views.
Hazards and failure modes optional Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Standards and interfaces required Derived, awaiting review
- OGC SensorThings API Part 1: Sensing Version 1.1
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
Context of use required Filled
- No universal holding registration, individual animal tag, calendar-year cycle, food output or cadastral field is assumed
- European hygiene texts illustrate record needs only; the historical consolidation and nonbinding guidance do not establish current law anywhere
- International statistical categories and traceability standards are optional alignments, not globally binding operating rules
Sources Filled
- World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2020, Volume 1 - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
- AGROVOC - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
- Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 4.3: Design and implementation of identification systems to achieve animal traceability - World Organisation for Animal Health
- Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, historical consolidated text - European Parliament and Council of the European Union
- EPCIS Standard - GS1
- OGC SensorThings API Part 1: Sensing Version 1.1 - Open Geospatial Consortium
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - World Wide Web Consortium
- Guidance document on implementation of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
Open questions
- Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion.
- Verify source URLs and exact editions outside the sandbox, reconcile WCA 2030 and current local legal applicability, and resolve EPCIS URL/PDF version identity.
- Develop qualified profiles for crop, livestock, smallholder, mobile and nonfood operations, with explicit decisions on additional aquaculture and forestry boundaries.
- Implement and test instance schemas and bindings against failed crops, repeated harvests, group splits, mixed lots, stale observations, correction propagation and lawful record disposal.
- Independent second-provider review is absent; local Codex self-audit cannot replace it
- FAO WCA 2030 changes have not been reconciled; FAO WCA 2020 is used only as historical conceptual evidence
- Current law, WOAH edition and EPCIS errata/version matching need verification; direct HTTP is unmeasured in this sandbox
- Nested data schemas, unit conversions, vocabulary releases, machinery exchange, animal identification technology and executable conformance are not implemented
- Detailed agronomy, water rights, nutrient balances, emissions accounting, worker safety, welfare and disease policy need qualified specialist profiles
- Aquaculture, forestry and capture fisheries need separate boundary research; no universal all-agriculture claim
Machine files
Provenance
world-models research · reviewable-draft
Built from: models/wm-act-011-agriculture-operation/spec.yaml