mbrush
commented
4 years ago If we agree it is needed/helpful, the upcoming CD2H / Attribution Meeting Chicago might be a good opportunity to do this, if we can provide a structured exercise for stakeholders to provide CQs. We would need to educate folks a bit on our goals and frame the exercise to get the types of CQs we need - but this would be minimal effort given our experience in this area. Anyway, lmk what y'all think and if/how I might facilitate (given that I am on vacation next week and not going to the meeting in Chicago).
diatomsRcool
kristiholmes
So far I have been developing the data model in somewhat of a vacuum - being informed by high-level directions on what to create, and personal assumptions based on limited experience in the domain of scholarly attribution and evaluation.
As I have started to formalize the model, I am finding areas where more concrete requirements would be very helpful. e.g. what attributes of the Agent or the Artifact would be useful to support queries and analyses? Wondering if/how people think we should go about this? Given the simplicity of this model, we'd want a fairly simple and focused effort here.
In nearly all other modeling projects, the collection of competency questions from stakeholders and potential users of the model has proved very useful to help define the scope, structure, and granularity of our models. I know that much outreach and requirements collection was done for the CRO itself - to help define the types of contribution roles that exist. While this proved very helpful for CRO development, it does not inform requirements I need to build a data model in which these contribution roles will be used.
So, just throwing this out there as a possibility for bottom-up requirements collection. But if you all (Melissa, Kristi, etc) feel that you have a handle on the requirements, I am happy to take top-down direction.