Reviewing LCI datasets¶
Versioning System¶
ELDAM has been designed with version tracking in mind, for tracking the process’s history as well as process review. It uses a two numbers versioning system (V1.0, V2.3, V1.5, …). The first number is the process major version number. It only changes on major modelling change in the process (change of hypothesis, used technology, …) and is a breaking point with the previous versions. The second number, minor version number, tracks the different review versions of a process.
The following figure explains the review procedure:
Review states¶
Each data of the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) must be reviewed. For this purpose, they all have a review state that takes three possible values (Invalid, Needs changes, and Valid). For an easier edition of the Elda, each review state has a code (0, 1 and 2).
Invalid means that the author must change the data and submit it back to the reviewer.
Needs changes means that the author must do minor changes to the data but does not need to submit it back to the reviewer. Once the changes made, he can directly pass the review state to Valid.
Valid means that the data has been approved by the reviewer.
Elda versions have review states too, that are set automatically. The first version of the Elda is Under progress. If a version has at least one Invalid data, its review state is Major corrections. If it has no Invalid data but at least one data that Needs changes, its review state is Minor corrections. Finally, if every data is Valid, the versions review state is Reviewed and valid.
Data review states¶
Review state |
Code |
Meaning |
|---|---|---|
Invalid |
0 |
The author must change the data and submit it back to the reviewer. |
Needs changes |
1 |
The author must do minor changes to the data and change the review state to Valid. |
Valid |
2 |
The data has been approved by the reviewer. |
Version review states¶
Review state |
Meaning |
|---|---|
Under progress |
First version. |
Major corrections |
There is at least one Invalid data. |
Minor corrections |
There is no Invalid data but at least one data that Needs changes. |
Reviewed and valid |
Every data is Valid. |
Review comments¶
Each data also has different types of comment fields. First of all, the Comment field contains information that helps to understand the data itself and that are not related to the review. The Comment for reviewer field contains information that the author wants to communicate to the reviewer during the review process. The Reviewer’s comment field contains information by the reviewer, explaining what he changed in the case of a minor correction by himself or what he expects in the case of a modification that must be done by the author.
Review comments can be removed by the author (if they are not relevant anymore) when changing a data’s review state from Needs changes to Valid. They can similarly be removed by the reviewer when changing a data’s review state from Invalid to Valid.
Instructions for authors¶
When creating the first version of a LCI, the author fills every mandatory fields and potentially adds comment for the reviewer (if he is uncertain about a value for example). Once the first version is complete he sends it to the reviewer with all the related documents (cited in the Data source field of the flows).
When receiving a reviewed version, the author creates a new minor version and corrects the data marked Invalid or Needs changes. For data that Needs changes, he sets the review state to Valid and deletes the review comments (from author and from reviewer) if they are not relevant anymore. If there is no more Invalid data, then the LCI is Reviewed and valid, else he sends it back to the reviewer for another review iteration.
To easily spot what data have been changed, he can look at the reviewer version in which every modified data is highlighted in yellow.
Instructions for reviewers¶
When receiving an Elda, the reviewer creates a new minor version and looks at every Invalid data (all data in the case of a first version). The reviewer does several verifications:
He checks that mandatory data are filled in;
He checks that non-mandatory data are left blank only if they are not necessary to understand the process or are unknown;
He checks the consistency of each data;
He looks for typing errors;
He checks that every data is sufficiently documented.
Once the data has been checked, he does one of the four actions:
Set the review state to Valid and remove the review comments if they are not relevant anymore;
Make a minor correction (eg. a typo) and set the review state to Valid indicating the modification done in the Reviewer’s comment field;
Set the review state to Needs changes and indicate in the Reviewer’s comment field what needs correction;
Set the review state to Invalid and indicate in the Reviewer’s comment field what needs correction.
Use case¶
Below is a simple use case scenario to illustrate the review procedure.
The original author makes the first version of a LCI (V1.0) and sends it to a colleague for review. The reviewer makes some minor corrections (typos for example) and points out some errors to be changed by the author (V1.1). The version status is Major corrections. The author receives this version and corrects the errors (V1.2). The reviewer validates every data in a final version (V1.3). After some research, the author finds that the technology used in his original process was outdated and decides to change it for a more modern one. He makes his changes to creates a new version (V2.0) and sends it to the reviewer. The reviewer points out minor mistakes that must be corrected by the author, he creates a new minor version (V2.1) with the status Minor corrections. The author creates a new minor version (V2.2) and corrects the mistakes. The new final version is now V2.2.
Files management¶
In order to avoid concurrent versions of Eldas and to make review procedure easier, it is advised to store Eldas in a shared directory along with all the corresponding documents.