General ERD Structure and Entity Organization Feedback

[pwt-cd]

General ERD Structure and Entity Organization Feedback

🔗 Related Links

• ERD Navigator: Explore the full data model →
• Entity Discussions: Individual entity schema discussions are linked from the navigator

🎯 Purpose

This discussion is for general feedback about the overall structure, organization, and relationships within the BOOST Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD). While individual entity discussions focus on specific schema details, this space is for broader questions about:

• Entity Relationships: How entities connect and interact
• Overall Organization: Whether the current entity groupings make sense
• Missing Entities: Gaps in the current data model
• Consolidation Opportunities: Whether separate entities should be combined
• Structural Improvements: Better ways to organize the data model

🤔 Key Areas for Feedback

1. Entity Relationships and Dependencies

• Do the current relationships between entities make sense for biomass supply chains?
• Are there missing relationships that would improve traceability?
• Should any relationships be restructured or simplified?

2. Entity Organization and Grouping

• Are the 17 core entities the right scope for BOOST?
• Should any entities be consolidated (e.g., Organization/Customer/Supplier)?
• Are there entities that should be split into multiple entities?

3. Supply Chain Coverage

• Does the current model cover all critical aspects of biomass tracking?
• Are there supply chain stages or processes not adequately represented?
• How well does the model support different biomass types and markets?

4. Implementation Considerations

• Will this structure work well for real-world implementations?
• Are there complexity issues that could hinder adoption?
• How does this compare to existing industry data models?

5. Future Extensibility

• Can this model grow to support new biomass markets and regulations?
• Are there structural changes needed for long-term sustainability?
• How well does it support integration with existing systems?

💬 How to Provide Feedback

• 👍 Thumbs up if the overall ERD structure looks good
• 💬 Comment below with specific suggestions about:
  • Entity relationships that should be added, removed, or modified
  • Structural improvements for better supply chain representation
  • Real-world use cases that aren't well supported
  • Comparison with other industry data models you know
• 🔄 React with specific emojis to highlight priority areas:
  • 🎯 for core structural issues
  • ⚠️ for potential implementation problems
  • 💡 for innovative ideas
  • 🔄 for suggested reorganizations

🏆 Success Criteria

A successful BOOST ERD structure will:

• Comprehensive Coverage: Represent all critical biomass supply chain processes
• Clear Relationships: Enable efficient traceability and audit trails
• Implementation Ready: Support practical deployment across diverse organizations
• Future Proof: Accommodate emerging biomass markets and regulatory requirements
• Industry Alignment: Integrate well with existing systems and standards

📋 Current ERD Summary (17 Core Entities)

Supply Chain Entities:

• Organization, Supplier, Customer
• Material, ProductGroup
• DTSTransaction, TransactionBatch, Claim

Certification Entities:

• CertificationScheme, Certificate, CertificationBody
• Audit, VerificationStatement

Operational Entities:

• SalesDeliveryDocument, MassBalanceAccount
• EnergyCarbonData, SupplyBaseReport

Explore the ERD Navigator for detailed entity schemas and relationships.

---

Your experience with biomass supply chains, data modeling, and industry standards will help create a robust, practical data model for biomass origin tracking! 🌱

[bcabiyo]

Broad feedback on overall structure of entities:

1. It is unclear how MECI (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) the entities are. For example, Organization is broad and theoretically inclusive of Customer.
2. There are multiple points where entities could theoretically be merged. For example, Certificate, VerificationStatement, Claim could be replaced with one Document entity plus a type field (ostensibly these three should always be linked if they are not separate entities).

Overall, I'm curious: can we reduce the number of entities?

[pwt-cd]

There are multiple points where entities could theoretically be merged. For example, Certificate, VerificationStatement, Claim could be replaced with one Document entity plus a type field (ostensibly these three should always be linked if they are not separate entities).

@bcabiyo see the Q&A on organization-like entities for a response.

If you have other specific suggestions for merging entities please frame them as questions in the Q&A as a starting point.

[pwt-cd]

From CDFA interview 7/17/2025

Location should be integrated into multiple entities to ensure tracking