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

[Pouchard, Line]

Hi Beth and John:

I was wondering if it would make sense to give evaluators one small ontology that they could use to work with the repos.  Then ask them to perform the tasks you describe, e.g., login, upload, download, edit, search, etc. in various ways, Web interface, API, etc. There can also be an order to theses tasks, as not all tasks may be permitted based on your login credentials.

I don't know how this ties into the current use cases but it may be useful to look into this for the evaluation.

Line

Sent from my iPhone
Line Pouchard, PhD
Purdue University Libraries

Begin forwarded message:

From: Beth Huffer via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>>
Date: February 10, 2017 at 7:39:23 AM EST
To: <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>>
Subject: Re: [esip-semantictech] basic questions about STC Use Cases and Requirements
Reply-To: Beth Huffer <beth at lingualogica.net<mailto:beth at lingualogica.net>>


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<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb


_______________________________________________
esip-semanticweb mailing list
esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto: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/20170210/98c778f2/attachment.html>