Init1dbw4 - MD Anderson Federated Registries

Date: 

12/10/2009

Requirement # unique id:

Init1dbw4

Originator/Customer's Name:

Michael Riben                                                                                         

Originator/Customer's Company:

MD Anderson

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 decription).

caBIG® Community WS Projects

Summary of requirement pre-interview, by Reviewer:

MD Anderson is one of potentially many cancer research organizations that will be adopting non-caBIG technologies in order to meet their research and enterprise goals.  However, it is highly desirable to adopt caBIG/NCI metadata standards in order to be able to share data and build interoperable systems.  The challenge is that there is a need to develop localized data elements and terminologies that are not centrally managed at NCI.  Different departments, labs, clinics, etc. within the research organization desire to maintain ownership of their metadata while still reusing common standards whenever possible.  Therefore, the proposal is to federate the metadata infrastructure such that different organizations, departments, labs, software applications, etc. can maintain their own metadata while standards flow both top-down and bottom-up.  The current semantic infrastructure at NCI is not amenable to this type of federated model.  The caDSR has not been designed in a fashion that would allow other organizations to deploy their own caDSR and have data flow between the instances.  MD Anderson is proposing to leverage and extend the cgMDR project in order to pilot federation of metadata management at their organization.

This would facilitate a federated architecture such as this:

See the VCDE:attached presentation for more information. All users of the semantic infrastructure would be effected by these requirements.

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

Follow-up Interview

Requirement Type (required)

Analyst's assessment 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