[esip-semantictech] basic questions about STC Use Cases and Requirements

[Beth Huffer]

Hi John,

You're correct that the STC Use Cases and Requirements were created to 
aid in the evaluation of the ontology repositories. The target use cases 
for the evaluation are 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.7. Some of the initial, 
high-level use cases were combined because they were essentially 
variations on the same theme. And some of the use cases were more like 
functional requirements. We expect that when the evaluation begins we 
will work with Annie to solidify the process. But I think in large part 
the idea is to have the evaluators attempt to do the things specified in 
the use cases and report on their experience. I suspect there will be 
some set of criteria - i.e., for each use case, were you able to 
succesfully complete it? If not, which step(s) were you unable to 
complete. If yes, then for each step tell us.... whether you connected 
via an api or a ui, how intuitive was the ui, were you able to get help 
in cases where it was obvious what to do... I don't know for sure, but I 
think we can work this out with Annie Burgess.

As for requirements, if you'd like to write up additional, or more 
detailed requirements for any of the use cases, and send them around so 
everyone has a chance to weigh in on them, that would be great. Since 
the use cases were sent around initially to give people a chance to 
comment and make changes, I don't want to start making unilateral 
changes at this point. But as long as everyone has a chance to weigh in, 
I'm not averse to making changes.

We have tried to link requirements to use cases, and the requirements 
are high-level by design (somewhat). They're mostly functional 
requirements - users of the repository must be able to do x - because 
doing x is necessary for one or more use cases. For example, users must 
be able to browse ontologies because doing so is necessary for editing 
an existing ontology. But we want to be neutral about how requirements 
are satisfied. We want the evaluators to just try doing this stuff, i.e, 
pretend you're the person in use case 4.7 and try going through the 
steps of the use case. If the browsing requirement isn't satisfied, or 
if it is satisfied, but provides a bad user experience, we want that to 
come out in the evaluation. In other words, user judgment is, in fact, 
what we want.

That being said, please feel free to suggest changes and/or additions to 
the use cases and their requirements.

Thanks John!

Beth

On 2/9/17 9:58 PM, John Graybeal via esip-semanticweb wrote:
> hi all,
>
> Before I submit any questions or markup fo  the STC Use Cases and 
> Requirements document, I wanted to clarify its goals.
>
> As I understand it, this document was created as a means to evaluate 
> the ontology repositories currently available to ESIP users. As 
> discussed in meetings late last year, following the usual ESIP 
> evaluation methodology, the evaluation criteria will be handed out to 
> the evaluators with instructions on how to perform the evaluation. In 
> previous cases I've known, Annie has created those instructions to 
> match the circumstances of the evaluation, in consultation with the 
> evaluation customer -- STC in this case.
>
> So one question is, do we (the STC) have expectations for those 
> instructions? I ask because the requirements are very lightly 
> specified so far, roughly a list of features, so a lot of user 
> judgment will be required to give useful feedback. If it is worth 
> being more specific in the requirements, I can try to add some content 
> toward that.
>
> Also, in a few places (in 2.2, titled Evaluation of Semantic 
> Repository Implementation Platforms), the document references semantic 
> web technology *stacks* as an end goal of the STC. Does this, together 
> with the document title and the broad-ranging use cases, mean this 
> upcoming evaluation is about more than simply the semantic repository 
> implementation?
>
> Finally, please remind me the preferred format for markup. Thanks!
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ========================
> John Graybeal
> Technical Program Manager
> Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
> Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
> 650-736-1632
> skype: graybealski
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20170210/912ee4a4/attachment.html>