Init1hm4 - Reuse of Metadata

Date: 

12/11/2009

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

Init1hm4

Originator/Customer's Name:

Sal Mungal                                                                                   

Originator/Customer's Company:

Duke University

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).

Software and Application engineers and developers

Summary of requirement pre-interview, by Reviewer:

Reuse the metadata content (XSD, forms, OC, DEC, VD, UML Classes, UML Models, etc.) more easily. Tools to navigate and follow relationships to related metadata.

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

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.                                                                                                                    

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)

Business Goal: To improve and facilitate the metadata reuse
Actor: Metadata expert or Information Specialist
All metadata browsers (knowledge and model) integrated into one, so that information specialist or metadata expert can find the content s/he is looking for using one browser.
Browser should support metadata search. You should be able customize view of the returned search results (show certain components of metadata).
Browser should provide functionality to be able to retrieve usage metrics/statistics for any metadata component.
Browser should provide the navigation between different representations of metadata content (e.g. CDE to model view, CDE to Form Questions). Or it should allow listing of related metadata (e.g. this CDE is used in various classes or forms)
Once metadata is identified, you should be able grab/import to a project.  So browser (tool) should provide export format that can be used/consumed by modeling or form building tools. The metadata exported should carry all the features of the content (e.g. concept annotations, definitions, value domains with permissible values). The browser should be smart enough to identify the relationship between selected metadata and potentially construct model view or form view from that (for instance modeler chooses 10 CDEs which can translate into 5 classes with 10 attributes, the export should contain all 5 classes with correct attributes and annotations of them). This is to cut-down modelers'  or form builders' work. It should as easy as "Check mark, grab, export , import to your tool".

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) 

Starting modeling (form building) and annotation from existing metadata content, rather than first modeling (or building forms) and trying to match/map to existing metadata.  Using browser, check mark, grab, export , import to your modeling (form building) tool.

4

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

See response to question 2.

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)

I use CDEBrowser and UMLModel Browser (among many others) that is relevant to this requirement.  The functionalities asked in this requirement is not currently supported.

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)

It will improve metadata reuse and furthermore accelarate implemention cutting modeling(form building)/annotation time.

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)

Can't think of a feasible alternative.

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.)

Search, select, export and import metadata content to reuse (XSD, forms, OC, DEC, VD, UML Classes, UML Models, etc.). Ability to navigate and follow relationships between related metadata.

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)

2. Should 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)

3. Completely satisfied 

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)

Already captured in other requirements provided by me.

12

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

N/A

12

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)

Most important of all the exported format should be able to consumed by (imported to) a modeling or form building tool.

14

Forum Link:

VKC or other forum where this requirement is discussed

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

                   Functional                          

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

Initiative 1

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.

Use Case Template (text) in Round 4 with other Metadata Repository UI related functional requirements submitted.