Page History

1

Hello, my name is NAME. I am calling you today because NCI and caBIG are working toward a new and improved version of the semantic infrastructure to better support integration scenarios.
Our first step was to organize requirements collected over the past year. Your organization has expressed a requirement/need for BRIEF STATEMENT OF USER REQUIREMENT.  This has been identified as potentially a critical component to support application/data and service integration, and we need more information in order to enable us to meet this requirement.
Do you have about 30 minutes to talk about this?

Yes. If yes, proceed. If no, note a good time to call back.
                                                                                                                    

2

Do you have any solution integration needs? If so, what are they? Have you envisioned new ways of interacting with existing or new parts of the semantic  infrastructure?
(prompt to elicit changes/new ways of using the infrastructure)

  
Knowledge Repository Browser and Model Browser. They should be tightly integrated so that one can switch between different views (model/knowledge) easily. We need browsers that interact with Knowledge and Model Repositories and support:

• Selection/configuration of repository instances to use: In a federated environment, user should be able to choose/configure which model and/or knowledge repository instances s/he wants to use.
• Search and discovery:  The browsers should allow developers/modeler to be able to discover/search the model or metadata components. The searches can be against:
     -Project names
     -Model package names
     -Description of model components (classes/attributes)
     -Semantic annotation (concepts)
     -Value domains/permissible values
     -Any text field that is provided for the model or associated metadata (free text search)
  
• Presentation of search results: The search results should:
     -Use color coding that makes them easy to read
     -Provide both textual (tabular) and graphical representation which can be selected per user's preference. Graphical representation is especially useful for visualizing Models and/or Model components.
     -Provide capacity to easily switch between model-centric or semantic metadata centric views. This should be supported for both graphical or textual representations.
     -Allow customization of the format, order and content (headings) of returned results.  For instance user should be able to drop/add fields to from textual representation.
     -Rank results with different fields/attributes as requested. The default ranking should consider the level of "reuse" for any given component (DE, object class, VD, class name) to allow users to identify highly reused components easier.
     -Allow selection of the search results (partial or complete) for comparison
     -Allow selection of the search results (partial or complete) added in a shopping cart (basket) that can be exported in XMI (if needed transformed to classes for modeling tool consumption) and XML compliant with ISO 11179 XSD.
  

• Wiki Markup

  Comparison of selected search results: The comparison functionality should allow:\\ &nbsp;&nbsp; \-Side-by-side comparison of the metadata/model components\\ &nbsp;&nbsp; \-Graphical (with visual clues such as coloring common attributes mapped to same DEC and/or CDE, classes sharing the same object classes) and/or textual representation (with same colored rows/text)\\ &nbsp;&nbsp; \-Addition of new components (revising original list) to compare based on a new query\\ <ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="20833ddd-9e13-4362-947e-edb949233924"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[ &nbsp;&nbsp; \-\[For model view\] Even if not selected, seeing generalization of selected classes (inherited subclasses)&nbsp; \\]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro> <ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="20447c04-729c-4f2c-80e4-e46472363e80"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[ &nbsp;&nbsp; \-\[For model view\]&nbsp; Uploading of an annotated model that is under development, to be able to compare with selected classes\\]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro> <ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="a2daf4b6-59cb-476a-a5b8-dbfb4ce6ea21"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[ &nbsp;&nbsp; \-\[For model components\] Cherry-picking some of the compared items, added in a shopping cart (basket) that can be exported in XMI (if needed transformed to classes for modeling tool consumption) and XML compliant with ISO 11179 XSD.\\ \\ \\

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro>

3

Are there any business changes you are assuming we will be able to deal with? 
(prompt to elicit changes/new ways of using the infrastructure)  Notes on anticipated business changes

The requirements above is for improving metadata reuse and primarily ask for:
- Better support for modeling tools and the input formats to support modelers
- Better search, visulization functionalities to improve reuse

4

Are there any capabilities you are expecting to be available to support your needs? 
(prompt to elicit expectations/dependencies)

Notes that identify capabilities, tools, and/or services expected

5

Do you use any of the existing software/services? If so, what do you like or dislike about it?
(if related to existing capability)

CDE Browser, UML Model Browser
Rigid /static in terms of view (not dynamic). So textual hard to understand. Performance. Comparison is primitive. Color coding is not user friendly.

6

If this requirement in met, what would be the benefits? If you do not have it, what would be the negative impact?
(prompt to elicit benefits/value - will help to prioritize)

This improve reusability of metadata and negative impact is poor if not none reusability and redundant metadata.

7

If, for any reason, we were not able to create that solution, do you think there might be another way to solve this issue? Can you think of an alternative solution?
(prompt to elicit alternative solutions/workarounds)
(to be prepared by the Requirement Analyst)

Alternative solution is not straight forward, laborious and costly for developer time. For example they need to copy/print and manually transform metadata to model. Or comparison they will either search extensively (long time) or simply create redundancy.

8

Would you agree that we can summarize your requirement like this?
(Summarize one requirement in 2-3 lines and read back to interviewee for confirmation.)

Requirement statement accepted by interviewee

9

How important is this requirement to the interviewee? Required: Customer Priority/Annotationrement Analyst
(Provides concrete assessment of the relative importance for the requirements specification)

1
. Must have

10

On a scale from 1 to 3 with 1 being "not satisfied" to 3 "completely satisfied", how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the product if this requirement was met?  (Relative rating/ranking of how satisfied or dissatisfied interviewee would be if this requirement were met/not met)

2 (Tool needs to be seen first)

1. Not satisfied
2. Mostly satisfied
3. Completely satisfied 
4. Other (describe)

11

Are there other requirements that you would like to share with us? I'd be more than happy to call you back another time, or if you have another 10 minutes, please share other issues you can think of.
(prompt to elicit any hidden - potentially higher priority requirements if they exist)

(If yes, take notes to use in on a new page with this template; if time not available now, try to make appointment for another call.)

12

Who else should we talk to in order to elicit more information about this need?

N/A

For specific service enhancement or requirement from Forum entry:

13

Can you or someone else give me a step-by-step description of how you would describe the expected performance/behavior of the software in order for you to feel that your requirement is met? 
(Required: Fit Criterion - will help us create test cases and user acceptance criteria - to be prepared by the Requirement Analyst)

Discovery - Finding right things. (Good ranking mechanism that leverages level of reuse, the more the better, object class, DE, DEC, VD)
Representation - More readable/customizable
Comparison - Easily finding the join points/commanilities between models or DEs
Uploading (removal) Model - Support for different modeling tools and easy upload (repeated reloads possible)

14

Forum Link:

15

URLs (optional):

Links to pages or applications related to this requirement

16

References (optional):

Links to articles, papers or presentations related to this requirement

Requirement Type (required)

Analyst's assessement of the most appropriate category/type of requirement (no need to ask interviewee):

• Functional: Fundamental or essential to the product - describes what the product has to do or what processing is needed
  
• Nonfunctional: properties the functions must have such as performance, usability, training or documentation
  
  • Project constraint: schedule or budget constraints
    
  • Design constraint: impose restrictions on how the product must be designed, such as conformant to ISO 11179, utilizes 21090 or is able to work on a particular type of device
    
  • Project driver: business-related forces such as descriptions of stakeholders or purpose of the product/project
    
  • Project issue: conditions that will contribute to the success or failure of the project

ConOp Initiative(s)
Requirements Analyst/Business Analyst

• Select most appropriate initiative: (click for descriptions) 
• Initiative 1 - Distributed, federated metadata repositories and model repositories and operations
• Initiative 2 - Automated generation of metadata from line-of-business artifacts
• Initiative 3 - Rules management and contracts support (behavioral semantics)
• Initiative 4 - Semantics support for W3C service oriented architecture resources
• Initiative 5 - HL7 CTS II/ OMG MIF compliant federated terminology services
• Initiative 6 - Controlled biomedical terminology, ontology and metadata content
• Initiative 7 - Assessment of semantic unification of compositional and derivational models
• Initiative 8 - Other

Use Case Linkage (required)
Business Analyst

Which use case(s) is this requirement linked to?  (should follow Use Case numbering scheme <SemCon Ops Initiative>.<analysts initials><requirement number>.<use case number>, for example Init1dbw1.1, Init1dbw1.2, Init2dbw2.1, 2.2, etc.

Use case Number(s):

Conflicts / Dependencies(required)
Requirements Analyst/ Business Analyst

Are there any conflicts with other requirements / use cases? 

Yes OR No - If yes, what and why?

Next Step (required)
(Requirement Analyst / Business Analyst)

After reviewing the results of the interview, the forum, and all other materials related to this requirement, the analyst should recommend the next step, then attach the Tiny Link (on the Info tab) for this page to the Master List table.

Enter one: Follow-up interview, Observe, Use Case Template (text), Use Case Model (formalized/UML diagram), Group Discussion, Prototype, Waiting Room