CyberGIS Requirements Workshop Planning Meeting Minutes
- Tele-conference on 11/17/2010, 3-4pm
- Attendees: Marc, Mike, Shaowen, Tim, and Yan
- Dates: Feb 1-2, 2011
- Place: Washington DC
- One full day, and one evening for social networking
Workshop activity document
Workshop Activity Document, version 20101117b, edited by Tim.
- Tim: Should our requirements workshop focus on science use cases?
- Mike: Science questions are definitely of NSF's interest
- Marc: It's good to focus on science communities
- Mike: Maybe a good idea to search NSF award database for funded projects focusing on or related to emergency management (EM). There have been a lot of them after Katrina. We are likely to get a good population of researchers that do EM
Who will be responsible for identifying and inviting participants?
- Science steering committee will recommend names. Marc and Mike will email names to Tim and Shaowen within next week
- Tim and Shaowen will compile, finalize and invite
Whom should we invite?
- Marc: Illinois has NSF-funded earthquake response research team
- Mike: Community-based EM research - Palen (Colorado)
- Tim: Current list in the workshop activity document is formed based on Tim's knowledge in academia
- Marc: National lab people do a lot EM, too. Should we invite them? How much do we want in data sector and computation?
- Shaowen: We are open as long as their work are geospatial-oriented
How many participants should we invite?
- Tim: Our budget is $16K. If we offer half support, we can double the number of participants
How to do requirements engineering?
- Tim: In workshop activity document, we listed science requirements for EM, as well as software integration requirements. Do we do EM more than software integration or the other way?
- Marc: I think our focus is placed more on requirements for software integration
- Shaowen: We will find a balance - we need to understand both the challenges of EM and cybergis capabilities required
- Tim: We will consider four system requirements (as described in workshop activity document)
- Mike: This basically narrows down to geospatial. It'd be helpful if we thought where geospatial kicks in for EM, e.g., attaining base map; 3-d information; specific tasks for emergency response
- Tim: We can apply these system requirements to all four areas of EM (mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery)
- Marc: We need to think about what will be main obstacles for cybergis integration?
- Mike: Refer to NRC 2007 report: Successful Response Starts with a Map: Improving Geospatial Support for Disaster Management
Gather use cases
- Tim: Discuss with participants; option to have short list of people who have to be there
- Shaowen: Provide user experiences for participants as proof-of-concept view; in invitation, let them test out capabilities
- Tim: we can give a demo in workshop, too
Synthesize use cases
- Tim: We have 2 options: 1) a research team does it, or 2) the whole group does it. It might be easier to do as a whole group.
- Mike: Given the small size of group, it might be better to do it by the whole group
- Tim: Shaowen, what is your expectation?
- Shaowen: What is clear are: guidelines for our software integration work plans; helping develop our participatory approach; insights on what new capabilities CyberGIS can provide to solve EM problems
- Tim: From my model-driven framework experience - 4 levels of interactions. We can work on filling in the architecture which we are moving toward. Fleshing out the architecture can be an outcome of this workshop
- Marc: One day might not be sufficient to have many loops. We can get feedbacks from participants and pertinent communities. After workshop, we will work on it internally
- Tim: Yes, we should shorten the process from conceptual to concrete. We should leverage the workshop to refine architecture design through the white paper. As Marc said, we gather ideas and push toward fully-fledged thoughts in white paper
Our expectation on the participatory approach before February
- Tim: We may need to accumulate experiences before delivering online participatory tools
- Shaowen: Given the number of participants, the workshop might not be sufficient for gaining sufficient experiences. We can start with some technical elements to show these are tools for online participatory process. At the end of workshop, we show that these tools will be used for future participatory process and ask for their feedbacks. We will show a proof of concept of the participatory approach by demos, which might work at larger-scale, e.g. community-level
- Tim: We need to be aware that user needs are different from requirement engineering
- Shaowen: We need some proof-of-concept ideas; not a fully-fledged thing before February. At UIUC, we are working on GISove to ready a couple of demos to illustrate CyberGIS capabilities that might be useful to EM
Online tools for use case evaluation at workshop
- Tim: To produce some form as template for use case narrative feedback gathering
- Shaowen: We will work on it immediately
- Tim: Tim and Yan talked about templates. For example, develop some commenting and voting features for organizing feedbacks on use cases online at the workshop
- Shaowen: Yan and Shaowen will explore technologies and get this set up and experimented before the workshop