Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Based on email "[Wf4Ever] [USER] Compilation on information coming from Users" dated 08/08/11

Completed with comments from G. Klyne

General Requirements


I think this discussion suggests some near-term focus for development work.  The ROBox model was well-liked, but there's a critical need to expand its functionality to support day-to-day research needs.

The above 4 documents are auto-generated from OpenOffice spreadsheets maintained at  I can regenerate them very quickly following addition of new requirements to these spreadsheets.

I believe these requirements are all incorporated into the above analysis, though maybe could use review.

This still broadly describes the process, but is a bit out of date concerning some details.


  • D5.1 Dropbox/Wf4Ever/ M6 Deliverables/D5.1/ D5.1_v1.0.pdf

I believe these requirements are all incorporated into the above analysis, though maybe could use review.

I think this is a very important contribution for guiding architecture next-step discussions.  It is not incorporated into the above requirements analysis (I'm not sure how to do that - maybe identify those requirements that are prioritized here?).


I believe all the requirements articulated here have been incorporated into the above analysis, though maybe could use review.

RO Modelling

Scenarios for Submission, Archival, Dissemination


There appears to be new information here that I wasn't previously aware of.  I believe an earlier verion of the "Propagation of Quantities" was used to derive the Astrophysics requirements documented so far, but the others all look new to me.

Guillermo:  did any Astrophysics user requirements come from any of the other documents and/or scenarios?


I've made a pass at incorporating user requirements derived from these into the requirements documents.  See:

Marco/Kristina: these should be reviewed to check that I didn't mis-interpret when extracting requirements.  I also introduced some new roles when formulating these, which you may wish to review/comment upon, as they don't fit your original classification of roles.

Other Scenarios and Roles


I believe these were used in formulating the user requirements in the consolidated analysis


The roles described here were incorporated into the requirements analysis.  The rest is general background discussion which is not directly incorporated.

I think this page has been somewhat superseded by other scenario descriptions. I'm not seeing anything specific here we need to be using.

This was used in preparing the biological user requirements for the M6 deliverables, and subsequently incorporated into the consolidated analysis.

RO Content


This looks like useful direct input to the RO modelling and design.  It is not currently incorporated into the consolidated requirements analysis.



RO Management Command Line Interface

This looks like a useful next step -- is this actually being developed?  If so, by whom?  Is there anything I can do to help here?

This page was originally prepared by me without awareness of the previous proposal.  It is now being updated (and renamed) to bring the command interface more into line with the above proposal by Stian and Piotr.

The current plan is to initially pursue two implementation strategies:  one will run mostly on the researchers' desktop and communicate with thje repository via ROBox, using some simple web services to augment the existing ROBox interface, and as such would not register directly with dLibra.  The alternative plan will be for the same or similar interface to be implemented to communicate directly with the dLibra RO SRS service.

I think this is an area we should regularly review our options.  Maybe there are grounds for continue two parallel implementation strategies, but if one shows clear advantages across-the-board over the other then they should be merged.

Other Info


Looks like background to me - not sure if there are explicit requirements to be articulated here.

I think (but am not sure) these were used as background input to the M6 requirements collection and analysis.


I don't see any requirements here, just a question.

This looks like a possibly important preservation/quality related requirement we may have failed to capture so far.

Is this discussion being subsumed and carried forward by the designs for command-line RO management tools, or is there something else here we need to keep alive?

I'm not sure how this usefully informs our discussions at this time.  AFAICT, Nanopublications focuses on granularity of information, and we are primarily focused on preservation of workflows and information in a broader context. These seem like orthogonal concerns to me, and I worry that trying to develop the nanopublication agenda at this time would have a defocussing effect on our efforts.

  • No labels