Re: [agenda] Protocol Use Cases

Hey, Rob–

This seems like a good starting point. I wasn't overly impressed with 
the structure and completeness of the Social Web WG's use cases and 
requirements, so I think we might be better off starting somewhat from 
scratch.

Unfortunately, I have a conflict with next week's telcon, so I won't be 
able to join you, but I'm interested to see what's decided.

I'm happy to help on an informal Use Cases and Requirements task force, 
showing how we approached this in the Web Audio WG [1]. Basically, we 
drew up scenarios (user stories) which illustrated a real-world need, 
then derived requirements from that; each scenario had several 
requirements, and each requirement might satisfy parts of multiple 
scenarios; we also assigned priorities to each scenario and requirement. 
This really helped ground us in the early days of designing and 
prioritizing features for v1 of the Web Audio spec, and we got good 
feedback that this was an easier way for people to relate to what we 
were trying to do. (Note that the final format of the Use Cases and 
Requirements doc was cleaned up and slightly altered, but we initially 
worked in a wiki.)

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/reqs/Overview.html

Regards-
-Doug

On 11/13/14 6:21 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In order to move forwards in parallel with the different deliverables that
> we're chartered to produce, it would be great to discuss Use Cases on next
> week's call, particularly for the Protocol deliverable to inform
> discussions with other working groups, including both the Social Web WG,
> and the LDP WG which is starting to recharter and needs input as to what
> should be included in their next iteration.
>
> Use Cases for the Interface and Anchoring components are also important,
> and we should also discuss those towards defining scope and requirements.
> My sense is that these are a little more specialized compared to the need
> to transfer annotations between systems, and hence starting with protocol
> is likely the easiest route forwards.
>
> Rob & Frederick
>

Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 04:39:25 UTC