- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:56:46 +0200
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Jean-Claude Dufourd" <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
On Wed, 25 May 2011 11:44:42 +0200, Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >> ** 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. > JCD: I understand some people are saying: I am OK with being generic > about supported technologies, but I want to make sure this set of > features of my choice technology is supported. > So Russel's use case with a list of supported cases sounds closer to a > list of support requirements. > How about treating them as such ? short answer: yes...ish See the ongoing discussion about use cases format for a more verbose reply. /g -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 13:59:51 UTC