Page History
Wiki Markup |
---|
{scrollbar:icons=false} |
Page info | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Initial Analysis:
Item | Information/Response | |
---|---|---|
Date: | 01/19/2010 | |
Requirement # unique id <SemConOps Initiative>.<analysts initials><requirement number> | Init4hm1 | |
Originator/Customer's Name: | Guoqian Jiang | |
Originator/Customer's Company: | Mayo Clinic | |
Summary of requirement initial analysis, by Reviewer: (as unambiguously as possible, describe who (List of Actors) is interacting with the system, what the business goal is and how the system might support the actor's ability to acheive their goal) | Domain Experts (researchers) use the LexWiki to review and edit the content of a terminology. It is important to enhance the flexibility and usability of the LexWiki in the following areas. | — |
Recommended Next Step Enter one: Follow-up interview, Observe, Use Case Template (text), Use Case Model (formalized/UML diagram), Group Discussion, Prototype, Waiting Room | Interview |
Interview
Item | Script / Question | Information/Response |
---|---|---|
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. | Yes. |
2 | What do you do? What are your goals for the next year? Why are you doing this? | To enhance the functionality of the LexWiki. To provide a more flexible and usable platform for researchers to review, edit and make consensuses. |
3 | In interacting with the caBIG infrastructure, 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? | --- |
4 | Are there any business changes you are assuming we will be able to deal with? | Notes on anticipated business changes |
5 | Are there any capabilities you are expecting to be available to support your needs? | Notes that identify capabilities, tools, and/or services expected |
6 | Do you use any of the existing software/services? If so, what do you like or dislike about it? | Yes. In the LexEVS, there is a prototype system AJAX to implement the valueset management and binding mechanism. Currently, the workflow for the BiomedGT works for OWL ontology. It is ad hoc approach and not suitable for others such as RadLex (Protege Frame). It will improve the reuse of the workflow components if we can identify common modules. |
7 | If this requirement is met, what would be the benefits? If you do not have it, what would be the negative impact? | Summary of perceived benefit or negative impact |
8 | 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? | Description of any other solution that customer can envision |
9 | Would you agree that we can summarize your requirement like this? | Domain Experts (researchers) use the LexWiki to review and edit the content of a terminology. It is important to enhance the flexibility and usability of the LexWiki in the following areas. |
10 | How important is this requirement to the interviewee? Required: Customer Priority/Annotationrement Analyst |
|
11 | 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) |
|
12 | 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. | (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.) |
13 | 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: | --- |
14 | 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? | Well defined measurable verifiable expectation |
15 | Forum Link: | https://cabig-kc.nci.nih.gov/Vocab/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=123 |
16 | URLs (optional): | |
17 | References (optional): | Links to articles, papers or presentations related to this requirement |
Wiki Markup |
---|
{scrollbar:icons=false} |