Init1dbw9 - Application Developers Summary Use Cases

Date: 

01/08/2010

Requirement # unique id <SemConOps Initiative>.<analysts initials><requirement number>
e.g. Init1dbw1
(eventually linked to Use Cases)

Init1dbw9

Originator/Customer's Name:

Baris Suzek                                                                                      

Originator/Customer's Company:

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)

--> In general to cut the time in model load process:
- Centralizing/harmonizing tools to access metadata (Currently there is
quite a lot of tools with very related functions)

- Streamlining model load and/or metadata curation for developers so
that they can do it themselves (not necessarily a production level load)
-Empower Developers to load their own model in a staging area and decide when they are
Ready to move it to production

• Streamline annotation of the model process:
  
• Allow users to point to various vocabularies (not only NCI-T)
  
• Allow users to create their own concepts and allow immediate
  consumption (not necessarily a production level creation; it can be staged)
  Allow new concepts to be sketched to meet an immediate need so user can
  Annotate his model - its available through another vocabulary - should let him annotate the model
  Without assigning the concept code (just need a description) - the loader would identify the new concept and
  Semi-automatically create the concept and attach to the model that suggested it. Allows the terminologists to
  see the use of the concept in context and either replace it or create a unique identifier for the new concept.
  
  In general to improve metadata reuse (model/data element/function)
  
• Allow users to compare their models with other models (Tejas)
  
• Provide users "already annotated" standard models for direct use
  (ensure DE-centric standards are modelable)
  
  - Develop tool(s) to conduct effective (e.g. sorting based on level of
  reuse, relation to DAM CDE/DEs/Object classes), powerful (e.g. free
  text, hierarchical (using annotations)) metadata searches (metrics that
  define "best")
  
  
• Develop tools to export formats consumable by model authoring tools
  
  
• Allow developers to discover and cherry pick the parts/portions from different
  models (or CDE based) to incorporate to their models
  
• Could be a business model, not just the information model
  
  
• Provide direct access to metadata repository from model authoring tools
  
• Ensure consistency among different representations of metadata (DE, model, XSD etc)
  
• Train developers for the new tools; develop scenario-based training modules (e.g. how a LS/CTMS modeler can create a model conformant)
  - Test conformance of messages to standard message schemas(e.g. HL7 v2)
  - Allow developers to provide metadata around functions/methods/interfaces
  
  In general to support fast/easy development:
  - Provide ISO 21090 libraries for different languages
  - Provide SDKs for development, supporting
  - ISO datatypes
  - ORM
  - API (messaging or object based) generation for different languages
  - Provide specification templates
  (Business/Information/Computational/Engineering VPs) for ECCF viewpoints
  (The templates can accommodate extraction of computable specifications
  from business artifacts) - Provide a library of conformance profiles and search capability along
  with so that people can "reuse" in their specifications and/or write
  conformance statements accordingly
  In general to support "computable" interoperability
  - Support computable "collaboration specifications" that can be realized
  as transformation services/methods as needed
  - Support automatic generation of transformation services (this will
  require conformance to std. messages HL7v2/3)

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

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?

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

2

What do you do? What are your goals for the next year?  Why are you doing this?

Notes describing user perspective

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?
(prompt to elicit changes/new ways of using the infrastructure)

4

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

5

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

6

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

Yes OR No/ Notes that fully describe the requirement

7

If this requirement is 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)

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?
(prompt to elicit alternative solutions/workarounds)
(to be prepared by the Requirement Analyst)

Description of any other solution that customer can envision

9

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

10

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

Select:

1. Must have
2. Should have
3. Nice to have but not essential
4. Other (describe)

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)

Select:

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

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.
(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.)

13

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

Name of contact(s)

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? 
(Required: Fit Criterion - will help us create test cases and user acceptance criteria - to be prepared by the Requirement Analyst)

Well defined measurable verifiable expectation

15

Forum Link:

VKC or other forum where this requirement is discussed

16

URLs (optional):

Links to pages or applications related to this requirement

17

References (optional):

Links to articles, papers or presentations related to this requirement

Stakeholder Community:

Enter appropriate category of stakeholder from Primary Stakeholders:  

• Software and Application designers and architects
• Software and Application engineers and developers
• Scientific and medical researchers
• Medical research protocol designers
• Clinical and scientific research data and metadata managers
• Clinicians
• Patients
• Medical research study participants
• Broader Stakeholders: caBIG® Community WS NIH projects and related commercial COTS vendors (caEHR, SDO's (HL7, CDISC); International Collaborators (e.g NCRI, cancerGrid, China), Government and regulatory bodies (FDA, CDC, ONC)
  (link to view SemConOps Stakeholders description).
  

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

High Level Use Case Summary)
Requirements Analyst/Business Analyst

Please write a short descriptive narrative use case; the steps or activities in this use case are usually the things the user wants to accomplish with the system (user/actor's goals).  

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