@turbomam any thoughts on ID being required and inlined? Is that ok? Seems weird to have inlined and ID? mixing & instrument

cc: @sierra-moxon

note, I added probe sonication information to the description. I think we can do the same for vortexing as it's not really a piece of information I think we would ever filter on or would have affects on results. Just an FYI also captured in the protocol

Group agrees that id and in-line is a no go. We will try to think of a different solution for substeps of processes that do not need has_input has_output or id. These would be in-lined classes only.

MixingProcess: upon further review, isn’t actually important for the standard reason of capture by NMDC

Steps in a process will be captured as collections and called out in metadata if

• It influence workflows & needs referenced in results or for running workflows
• If it’s a metadata field someone would need / want to filter or search by

Mixing as was modeled in this class doesn’t fit either of those, as such will not be captured

For now, convert this PR to draft, and after more MS MP metadata has been captured, we’ll return to this slot and class and determine if it’s needed, how to capture it, or if it should be deprecated.

Appears to be active. Will move to current sprint.

Is it active? @mslarae13 @kheal @turbomam
I'm removing from this sprint.

We decided NOT to do this & allow inlined