W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > September 2011

Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Requirements formulation

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:44:41 +0200
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Russell Berkoff" <r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com>
Message-ID: <op.v1qtgrqk6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:01:23 +0200, Russell Berkoff  
<r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I have some concerns with the top-down methodology used to document HNTF  
> requirements.
not sure what do you mean by top-down approach. What I did is to start  
 from the usecases, asking people to generate requirement from them, and  
group these requirements in one section.

In some cases, due to lack of feedback from the usecases authors, I wrote  
requirements myself. If I missed some requirements, it could be an  
oversight.

>
>
>> While the HNTF draft  requirements do not appear to be defective, they  
>> are very high-level  and it is difficult to unambiguously  determine  
>> whether the draft requirements fully map the requirements that would be  
>> generated by >a bottom-up requirements review of the submitted  
>> use-cases.
That is why there is a "requirements" section for each Usecase. Would you  
propose a different editorial style? I'm open to suggestions.
>
> I previously submitted a 1st pass at such a derivation. See 2011-07-25  
> [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Issue and Requirements Summary posting.
I did use this document as input, indeed.
>
> Here are a few examples of inconsistencies between the submissions.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> HNTF requirements do not make a clear distinction between playable media  
> and non-media metadata such as EPG data, Channel Lineups.
>> GENERIC
>
> UPnP	
>> ISSUE-26	
>> User-Agent supports an application which can list EPG data provided by  
>> a >home-network device

The reason why I didn't include this is because I felt it as already  
included in the high level requirement "Service communication".

>
> HNTF requirements do not clearly indicate that other features of home  
> network media renderers may be controlled.
>
>> GENERIC
>
> UPnP	
>> ISSUE-28	
>> User-Agent supports an application which can >control presentation on  
>> home-network Media >Rendering devices such as alternate audio track  
>> >selection, Picture-in-Picture,  Closed Captioning, >brightness,  
>> volume, etc.


Can this be part of " Control of content players" requirements? That was  
my assumption, maybe the requirement need some more text?
>
> HNTF requirements do not clearly describe non-media transport  
> applications of services. This is clear in ISSUE-4 but was not  
> adequately captured in the requirements.
>
>> GENERIC
>
> UPnP	
>> ISSUE-30
>
> (not merged >with >ISSUE-4)	
>> User-Agent supports an application which can >control generic  
>> home-network device whose function >may not be fully standardized. This  
>> may include new >web applications such as E-Health, Remote  
>> >Provisioning and Home Energy Management.

We have decided to close this issue, and we have already generic  
requirements like service communication, application communication,  
service discovery, so I'm not sure what this would add.

In general, IMO, requirements should be a bit higher level than usecases.

/g


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2011 10:45:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 September 2011 10:45:19 GMT