Link to page: 3 - Stakeholders - caGrid 2.0 and Semantic Infrastructure 2.0
Page to edit: caGrid 2.0 and Semantic Infrastructure 2.0 Stakeholders
Comment 02 on Section 3
November 22 Version
Developers are described in one place as Solution Developers and elsewhere as Service Developers. Are these the same stakeholders? If so, the terminology needs to be consistent. If not, the distinction needs to be clarified.
Resolution: Edited to clarify. Brian McIndoe
Comment 01 on Section 3
November 22 Version
Under definitions, Executive Decision Makers, the document mentions adopting or adapting caGrid or SI 2.0 “or both.” Earlier in the document, it discusses the two as if they are inseparable. Needs clarification on how they might be used independently. This is probably covered in the discussion about “just enough semantics” (presumably including none), but it is not clear how users, developers, etc. can use caGrid and SI 2.0 independently.
Resolution: A given organization can adopt a caGrid 2.0-compliant service by simply using the code developed by a CBIIT-funded project. Alternatively, it could take the code base and "adapt" it through a series of organization-specific localizations. Another path to adoption can be traversed by an organization that adopts a given specification not at the code (or PSM) level, but instead at the PIM level (for example) and then "adapt" that specification by building its own PSM specification and, in follow-on, its own specification.
caGrid 2.0 and SI 2.0 are not independent from the perspective of caGrid since there is a runtime instance of SI 2.0 that forms the "semantic stack" that sits "on top of and is integrated with" the underlying caGrid 2.0 "tech stack." However, in addition to this runtime instance of SI 2.0 in the context of caGrid 2.0, another SI 2.0 instance could provide semantic services -- e.g. terminology services (authoring, usage, etc.) -- to non-caGrid 2.0 customers. In this sense, the SI 2.0 can be viewed as "independent" from caGrid 2.0. Charlie Mead
