- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:33:25 +0900
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- CC: Russell Berkoff <r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org
On 05/25/2011 06:59 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2011 21:57:32 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi Russel, >> >> I think there are two possible options: >> >> option 1: you separate your description into the following >> two pieces: >> 1. generic description on the use case itself >> 2. detail of possible implementations and/or examples >> like existing standards, e.g., DLNA/UPnP >> >> option 2: you simply make your use case a "specific kind of >> use case" in our use case document >> >> My personal preference is option 1 above :) >> >> Russel, Giuseppe and others, what do you think? >> > As I mentioned during the call, I would prefer the following approach: > > 1. usecases should be technology neutral as much as it make sense > (i.e. mention a technology only when is essential part of the > usecase) > 2. additional requirement for specific technologies to be supported > can be added later, mainly as design goals > (in fact, there is already a deisgn goal to support UPnP, see [1] > > So my suggestion would be: > - re write the use case (actually splitting it in several usecases) > from a user centric perspective and without explicitly mention > UPnP/DLNA > - as "comment" of the use cases you could mention that UPnP (and > maybe you can mention other protocols as well) is currently used > to cover that use case in some deployment scenarios > > So in short, I'm fine to keep the information in, just propose to > have a better split. Thanks a lot for your clarification, Giuseppe! I think your suggestion is reasonable (and my option 1 is kind of similar to your suggestion :) Russell and others, what do you think? Maybe we should add some note to the TF charter [2], the TF charter template [3] and the proposal procedure [4] as well about this rule/guideline. [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Use_Cases_Template [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Procedures Thanks, Kazuyuki > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Design_Goals > >> Thanks, >> >> Kazuyuki >> >> >> On 05/25/2011 04:40 AM, Russell Berkoff wrote: >>> Hello, >>> On the 5/24 HNTF call it was suggested to remove DLNA/UPnP from a submitted use-case. >>> I have no particular objections. However, I do have a concern about existing deployed UPnP/DLNA devices that customers would like to have supported. >>> I would suggest that we include a use-case that directly requires support of existing (and future) UPnP/DLNA devices. >>> Regards, >>> Russell Berkoff >>> Samsung Electronics
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 10:35:07 UTC