Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comment on the usecases (open and closed) and on the requirement document

Hello all,

Please accept my apologies for my absence for the past few weeks due to  
other commitments. I hope to join you on the conference call today and  
participate more actively again from now.

The suggestion to seek to split the use cases into two categories seems  
sensible. From my perspective, what is important is to scope the  
desireable outcomes of any work in terms of what applications or services  
it enables. Regarding choice of terminology: I would consider this class  
to be high level use cases and others to be functional  
requirements/use-cases needed to achieve the high level ones.

Substituting 'application' for 'document' seems sensible. Will this need  
additional clarification with respect to whether the application is web  
based, or whether we also include other forms of application in scope? Or  
would the ambiguity be desirable?



On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:45:24 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale <>  

> Hi all,
> this mail list several comments on all the open/closed discussions so  
> far.
> Please take a look, I'll try to touch on this during tomorrow call as  
> well
> but if you have any comment before that, feel free to reply.
> ** generic, use of word document **
> First of all a generic comment about the use of the word "document".
> All usecases are currently defined as "A document" doing something.
> This seems to create some confusion for some usecases where is not clear
> which resources are associated with the document and what is the state of
> the document.
> I was wondering then if we should generalize and talk about "an
> application" doing something. In this way we are more generic and leave  
> to
> later specifications to define if the usecase can be implemented just
> extending the document or if additional mechanisms are needed (e.g. a
> concept of state)
> So the Usecases U1 and U2 [1] (already approved) would be rephrased as
> follows:
> U1. Discovery Content Host
> An __application__ as host for discovered content: e.g. an  
> __application__
> displays content provided by a local, discovered device or service.
> U2. 3-Box model
> An __application__ can coordinate action between other services. In the
> most obvious example, an __application__ discovers media content sources
> and media players. The __application__ allows the user to select a source
> and a player, then control playback (Play, pause, rewind, etc.) of the
> content to the player.
> Same applies to all open usecases.
> @JC, Clarke,
> what do you this of this rephrasing?
> ** generic, motivation section **
> At the moment, each use case is supposed to contain a Motivation: section
> that should describe (among the other things) "Why were you not able to
> use only existing standards to accomplish this?";
> I think nobody is really addressing this point. So either we add this to
> open and closed usecases or we drop the motivation section and we include
> any benefit to the ecosystem in the description (if needed)
> I think that for some usecases could make sense to underline why you
> cannot achieve that already with existing web standards. What do people  
> think?
> ** Service User Interface (ISSUE-4) **
> Comments:
> - change document into application
> - do we need to distinguish between devices and services? Isn't this too
> UPnP specific? Is probably more generic to talk about "services"
> A possible rephrasing:
> An application interacting with a service; in this use case the
> application provides a remote user interface for a service available on
> the network; some example are: light switch, hifi volume control, radio
> station chooser,remote control of a media player, etc.
> ** Document Responding to Requests (ISSUE-13)**
> Should we rephrase this as in "applications in the HN being able to  
> exchange messages"?
> ** High level use cases VS specific use cases **
> At the moment we have some high level usecases that seems to cover  
> basically all possible scenarios (expose a service, interact with a  
> service, discover a service).
> On the other end these seems to be a bit too high level and someone  
> infact proposed some more specific ones (see Jan and Russell proposals).
> So I'm wondering what is the best approach to cover both needs, i.e.  
> both describe some generic usecases and point to some more specific  
> services/usecases we want to be able to cover.
> My proposal would be the following: we split the usecases section in  
> two: first we list some high level usecases (i.e. the ones from Jean  
> Claude) and then we go into some "sub use cases" were we list some more  
> specific usecases we want to cover.
> Another possible approach would be to just list as a plain list both  
> high level and low level usecases.
> What do people think?
> /g
> [1]  

| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 09:19:18 UTC