W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [comment] Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments: Chapters 3, 4, 5

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:18:44 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830904071518s199d92d6t85fad087c4cfe629@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2009/4/8 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear Silvia,
>> I have no monopoly on these chapters - these suggestions are things we
>> should all decide together.
> I know, I know ... but the fastest way to go forward, is 1/ to do some
> changes and 2/ listening to the ones who complain, rather than discussing
> what could be changed and take then actions to implement these changes. My
> target is a publication after tomorrow's telecon, so I'm happy to implement
> changes asap and endorse them tomorrow on the call.

Will do what I can, but I'd rather promise the updates for after the
long weekend...

>> The only objection I have is with removing the numbering from sections
>> 4 - if we do that, it will be impossible to easily refer to them
>> later. At minimum I would suggest using a numbered list.
> I agree, we need to refer to them. After a second thought, subsection
> headings are not bad :-) We could even further identify these requirements
> with a label 'rxx' in the line of [1]

OK, will do.

>> Re: the "Evaluation of Fitness" table - I agree, the table is a real
>> obstacle to readability. Maybe we could move it into an addendum,
>> since it is analysing implementation-specific points?
> +1, you can add another annex with this table and simply refer to it in the
> section 5.5

OK, will do.

>> Also, I think section 4 (requirements) should probably go further up -
>> maybe section 5 first, then section 4, then section 3.
> Hum, I agree the requirements are important, but we extract them from the
> scenarios. Completely reversing the order could give the impression that we
> had the dimensions and we have imagined scenarios to justify them. So I
> think the most logical order is: a) scenario, b) four dimensions, c)
> additional requirements

Hmm... most of these requirements represent a framework that we have
set ourselves for our work. In particular the way in which we regard a
media resource. None of them is logical deduction from the scenarios.
The way in which I look at those three sections is:

a) framework within which we work to define media fragments
b) use case scenarios in which we can imagine media fragment use and
why some of them are out of scope (namely: because of the framework we
have set ourselves) - the scenarios are there to explain use cases and
to order them into different types, trying to make sure we have
covered all aspects
c) four dimensions of fragmentation that we consider as a consequence
of the use cases

I think this flows more nicely. The "Requirements" are actually almost
a "Terminology" section which is why I think this section should go up

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 22:19:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:42 UTC