Init5SD9-Best Practices for Using Standardized-Preferred Relations

Date: 

01/11/2010

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

Init5SD9

Originator/Customer's Name:

Jyoti Pathak

Originator/Customer's Company:

Mayo Clinic

Summary of requirement pre-interview, by Reviewer:

The Primary actor is a ontology engineer/information technologist trying to create an ontology

Business goal is to have a proper processes, guidelines and checks and balance in place for creation of an ontology thus making the process less disruptive.
There needs to be a set of 'best-practices' that needs to be defined for building an ontology. These 'best-practices' and the defined preferred/standardized relations would make transition to new ontology a less tectonic event.

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.
This requirement can be clubbed with an additional requirement defined under Init2SD7 the interview details captured are valid for this requirement

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)

There is a need for a tool that would internalize various ontolologies and use them as a reference while creating new ontologies such that new ontologies can fully/partially use the relationship between various concepts. 

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) 

Existing tools that are based on the previously existing ontologies can continue to be viable even if there are new ontologies available.

4

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

Not sure

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)

Protege plug-in NCBO bio-portal

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)

Existing software tools can continue to leverage the new ontologies thus these tools would have a longer shelf life

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)

Not sure

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.)

There is a need for a tool that can internalize the existing ontologies and use thus as a platform when designing a new ontology

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)

1. 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)

Select:

1. 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)

None

12

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:

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)

Well defined measurable verifiable expectation

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