- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:44:24 +0200
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Matt Hammond" <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Matt, all, On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:18:28 +0200, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > 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? > First of all I would like to bring back the (old) discussion about terminology, since when going into more detailed usecases we will for sure need to make use of terms like "website", "tv" and so on. So we will benefit from adding a "Definitions" section. I propose to start from the one proposed by mat a while ago [1] if people are fine with it, and add other terms like "service" "application" etc. When it comes to the term application, what I meant is "applications based on web technologies", that mostly mean web apps served by a web server on internet, but is not limited to that. Another example of application I think are in scope are W3C Widgets [1] that are defined as "interactive single purpose application [...] packaged in a way to allow a single download and installation on a user's machine or mobile device". Since calling a Widget "web application" may be confusing, I would prefer to use the word application and define the terms in the "Definitions" section. [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/UseCasesDualScreen [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ > > regards > > > Matt > > On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:45:24 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale > <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: > >> 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] >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Use_cases >> > > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 09:47:14 UTC