- From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:20:06 +0100
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Cc: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
On 24 May 2011, at 14:54, Francois Daoust wrote: > On 05/24/2011 03:45 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >> On Tue, 24 May 2011 13:20:15 +0200, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 05/24/2011 11:44 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> +1 to a "Definitions" section. >>> >>> Not that I like "document" so much, but I note that the HTML5 specification "uses the term document to refer to any use of HTML, ranging from short static documents to long essays or reports with rich multimedia, as well as to fully-fledged interactive applications": >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-LC/infrastructure.html#terminology >>> >> >> That probably still do not include Widgets, i.e. a package of documents. >> I don't have a strong opinion anyway. >> I can come up with a straw man proposal (for this and other terms) and people can comment on it. > > I don't see why it would exclude widgets. Widgets may be a package of documents, but the execution context remains at the document level in widgets, I think (i.e. there is one and only one document loaded and executed at a given point in time). A W3C Widget may contain multiple assets (including alternate localizations) however It isn't executed as a collection of documents, but as one application in one browsing context. So technically, in the HTML5 sense, a Widget may be a Document. However, in the colloquial sense, its an application. > Provided we define terms, it does not really matter what term we use. My point is that it could be easier and faster to re-use an existing definition than to come up with our own vocabulary. It depends on the audience, but if a use case can involve Widgets, it may be better to say so explicitly rather than to rely on readers referring to a broad definition of Document that includes everything from word documents to Angry Birds and filling in the gaps themselves. Many of UCs that Matt has submitted may involve Widgets - whether installed on the TV, a STB or on the second-screen device, or deployed as needed. I think thats a characteristic of the UC worth calling attention to rather than hiding. S > > Francois. > > > >> >> /g >> >>> Francois. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 14:20:40 UTC