Difference between revisions of "SolutionsUseCase CoastsOcean Arctic 2a"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 48: Line 48:
  
 
===Failure Outcomes===
 
===Failure Outcomes===
 
+
* Required metadata fields are not complete.
*1.Operation fails to return any XXX. Should instead YYYY.
+
* Metadata are not available to data discovery processes.
*2.Illegal input of AAA, Should instead ZZZZ
 
  
 
==General Diagrams==
 
==General Diagrams==

Revision as of 15:52, May 14, 2007

Return to: Use_Cases


Plain Language Description

Short Definition

Background: This use case was developed during a small workshop that brought together scientists from diverse physical, biological, and social science disciplines to address how they would search for and assess interdisciplinary data to address important Arctic coastal science questions. A small breakout group also discussed scenarios for delivering metadata from their research projects to the data managers responsible for providing a means of discovering and using these data.

Purpose

  • Metadata Creators don’t receive guidance regarding metadata requirements (e.g., templates, help with using self-describing data archival formats) or the archiving process.
  • It is difficult and time consuming to obtain accurate metadata after the data collection/analysis period, and particularly after the metadata have been contributed to an archive. Metadata Creators are usually dissatisfied with metadata as written by Metadata Archivers (data centers). These metadata are usually gleaned from project descriptions and project documentation, and typically aren’t accurate. Too much time is spent iterating back and forth between the Metadata Creator and Metadata Archiver in an attempt to create accurate metadata.
  • Data Seekers need metadata which will help them find connections between data (archive location), PIs, where/how data were obtained (project), and similar datasets. They need to be able to easily navigate from metadata to data.
  • Metadata Creators don’t create metadata throughout the research process.
  • Project metadata already exist in various forms in Project Funder records. Metadata Creators or Metadata Archivers frequently need to re-enter project metadata when populating dataset metadata records, even though those metadata could be retrieved directly from the Project Funder.

Describe a scenario of expected use

A Metadata Creator wishes to contribute metadata to a Metadata Archiver. The actual data will be archived by the Metadata Creator in the form of files available via FTP.

Definition of Success

Metadata are discoverable through Metadata Archiver interface.

Formal Use Case Description

Use Case Identification

Use Case Designation
CoastsOcean.Arctic.2a
Use Case Name
Contribute Metadata Representing Outcome of Arctic Coastal Processes Research

Revision Information

Prepared by:
Julia Collins
National Snow and Ice Data Center
17:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Version 0.1
Modified by:
<Modifier Name/Affil>, <Date/time>, <Brief Description>

Definition

Through this use case, the Metadata Creator contributes metadata to a Metadata Archiver. These metadata are the foundation of the use case described by SolutionsUseCase_CoastsOcean_Arctic_1a.

Successful Outcomes

  • Metadata are complete and available to Metadata Archiver.

Failure Outcomes

  • Required metadata fields are not complete.
  • Metadata are not available to data discovery processes.

General Diagrams

Schematic of Use case

[PDF version]

CoastsOcean.Arctic.2a.jpg

Use Case Elaboration

This section is intended to be completed with the details of the use case that
are required for implementation. This section is not intended to be filled in by 
an application user.

Actors

Primary Actors

  • Metadata Creator

Other Actors

  • Project Coordinator
  • Metadata Archiver

Preconditions

  • 1.Collection metadata have been entered into the system
  • 2.Collection metadata have been validated
  • 3.Collection metadata have been published

Postconditions

  • 1.Datasets or granules have been identified within the system for further action
  • 2.Appropriate action (i.e. Map, download, process) controls have been provided to the user to initiate that action.
  • 3.Controls are provided to the user to refine the criteria used to 'discover' the dataset.

Normal Flow (Process Model)

  • 1)The user selects the 'dataset discovery' tool collection from the user interface
  • 2)The user performs a 'simple' search using a simple interface that searches commonly queries dataset attribute fields for matching text/terms.
  • 3)The results of the search are presented to the user with appropriate action controls associated with the datasets.
  • 4)The user selects one of the action controls to 'use' the identified dataset(s) in a specified action (i.e. Visualization, download, processing)

Alternative Flows

  • 1)The user selects the 'dataset discovery' tool collection from the user interface
  • 2)The user selects a control that provides access to an advanced search tool that supports spatial, temporal, and parametric search methods. Flow then extends to EIE11-EIE14.

Special Functional Requirements

None

Extension Points

  • <Cluster>.<SubArea>.<number>.<letter+1> something added or a variant.

E.g. AQ.Smoke.1.b something added or a variant

  • <Cluster>.<SubArea>.<number>.<letter+2> something added or a variant
  • <Cluster>.<SubArea>.<number>.<letter+3> something added or a variant

Diagrams

Use Case Diagram

State Diagram

Activity Diagram

Other Diagrams

Non-Functional Requirements

Performance

Reliability

Scalability

Usability

Security

Other Non-functional Requirements

Selected Technology

Overall Technical Approach

Architecture

Technology A

Description

Benefits

Limitations

Technology B

Description

Benefits

Limitations

References

None