I have just created one new sheet (see tab "UseCases") in Anu's spreadsheet located here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PThsghUZ-911c_JE-gb0VshgyRGBhqLv...
My goal is to try and combine the ideas that came from Anu (applications and user stories), Sirko (suitability metrics) and myself (semantic representation interoperability using targeted phenomena) in one workable plan. I have re-used the terminology used in Sirko's paper (Steinberg et al) but also added the concept of "Actors" (it could also be called "Customer" because in our case these actors are the consumers of the terminologies).
I think that we will probably eventually decide that individual fine grain use cases (the ones that will need tested) need to be based on each actor's requirements which mean that the real use case (the one we will test) will be the combination of the use-case+actor. We can do that once we've agreed on the list of actors vs use case.
So, what I did was identify:
- 3 groups of use cases: Data annotation, Data integration, Data discovery (they would relate to the list of application drafted by Anu and others)
- 2 use cases per group (see spreadsheet for detail)
- a list of actors for each use case which came from a list that includes: Data creators including distinction of observational scientists, experimental scientists, data modeller, engineers (whose sensor and workflows generate raw and engineering diagnostic data), Data managers, Repository curators, Data scientists and analysts, Data product developers, API/UI developers, General data users
I have purposefully not mentioned any role related to the semantic resource providers because this is what we are evaluating.
So what I would be proposing at this stage is that we use the discussion time next week to:
- a) Correct any obvious omission in use case groups, sub-groups, or actors
- b) Define the necessary and optional requirements for each combination of use-cases and actors
- c) Start listing which terminology resource need to be tested against each use cases
- d) Decide whether our proposed (currently) 3 phenomena: nitrogen, aerosols, temperature, are a good basis for exploring how each participating terminology resource models observable properties
- e) Build table of terminologies to be used for the comparison and testing exercise against set of criteria needed to fulfil the user requirements
Barbara and myself will have a chat tomorrow to finalise next week's agenda and finalise the case statement revision. If you have any comments please send them to us.
Looking forward to meeting some of you next week.
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system.
UK Research and Innovation has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and malware checks before opening the attachments. UK Research and Innovation does not accept any liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to presence of any viruses.
Opinions, conclusions or other information in this message and attachments that are not related directly to UK Research and Innovation business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of UK Research and Innovation.
I-ADOPT use cases preparation work
You are here