[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Use cases "format" and Requirements

Hi all,
after last telco I've been thinking about this discussion and which  
editorial approach to use for the usecases.

As I mentioned during the telco, I first thought to split the section in  
"high level use cases" and "low level usecases".
Even though nobody objected to this (or maybe Russell did), I didn't see  
any major support for this either so I've decided to drop this for now.

The best thing is probably to try to collect and agree on the usecases;  
after that, we can see if we need to give to the document a more uniform  
"style" or not.
So my proposal would be to keep discussing the open issues as we have done  
so far and merge the approved usecases when they are approved.

The template to use is still the one we have been using so far and agreed
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Use_Cases_Template

But I still believe that that "Description:" part should be more  
structured in a way that contains a "user story" part and an "analysis"  
part.

If you have any feedback or objection please let me know.

/g

On Wed, 25 May 2011 12:25:54 +0200, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>  
wrote:

> Hi all,
> during yesterday call we discussed a bit about how the how a use case  
> description should look like, since we have got really different  
> "styles" of usecases and is good if we converge on one way of writing  
> them down.
>
> First of all we agreed to split the document in 2 parts:
> - a first part with high level usecases (discovery, expose services  
> etc); I'll take care of this part and try to write it down in the next  
> days based on some of the usecases and discussions we had so far.
> - a second part with more user centric and detailed usecases with the  
> aim of underlining which one are the "services" or which interaction  
> scenarios we foresee as most important to support.
>
> For this second part we discussed different approaches and I've been  
> looking myself to existing documents to have an idea of how it could  
> look like.
> Actually, if you check the W3C archive (http://www.w3.org/TR/) for  
> Usecases documents, you will find out that there are huge differences in  
> format between different documents. So there seems to be no uniform  
> template. This means, we should chose the format we believe is  
> appropriate for our case.
>
> Going through these documents, I identified some that are close to the  
> idea I have in mind as template, I'm posting them here for reference.
> Let me know what do you think and feel free to propose something  
> different; Let's try to converge on one template quickly, so that people  
> can conform to it when writing usecases.
>
>
> 1.  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-grddl-scenarios-20070406/#scheduling_use_case
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-frags-reqs-20091217/#use-cases
> 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-dap-policy-reqs-20110317/#interactions
> 4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-mmi-use-cases-20021204/
> 5. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/#usecases
> 6. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-rdfa-scenarios-20070330/#use-case-1
> 7. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-ucr-20081218/#Use_Cases
>
>
>
>
> If we have to pick one of these, I would probably go for #3 where you  
> have
> - a story (user centric, easy to understand)
> - analysis (with additional comments and considerations, if any)
> - requirements (which requirements are related to that usecase; can be  
> written at a later stage)
>
>
> Igarashi mentioned a step-by-step description; if we want to go for  
> that, maybe something like #5 above could be suitable. I still prefer  
> the #3 approach though.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> /g
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 12:57:55 UTC