Re: FW: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Use Cases for UPnP/DLNA

Hi Russell and Clarke,

Thanks for your opinions.  I think I'd agree with you two and we
should be able to mention several existing standards in our final
requirements document.

For example, there are lots of W3C Requirements documents which
requires for consistency with other existing specs:

- "VoiceXML 3.0 Requirements" refers to MRCP, etc.:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/vxml30reqs/#other-other

- "Widget Requirements" refers to Apple's Dashboard, Opera Widgets,
   etc.:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/#introduction

*However*, probably we should be careful about how to refer to DLNA,
etc., since the specification itself might be not publicly available.
So I think we need some more discussion within the group.  Francois
and myself are happy to check within the W3C Team as well.

Also I strongly would agree with Giuseppe that it would be better you
re-write the use case from a bit more user centric perspective without
explicitly mentioning UPnP/DLNA, and add a note on consistency with
the existing standards like DLNA and UPnP (or others, e.g., Bonjour).

BTW, maybe another Requirements doc for CCXML which has a "Use Case
Scenarios" section might be also useful for our work:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-call-control-reqs-20010413/#uses

Thanks,

Kazuyuki


On 05/26/2011 02:51 AM, Clarke Stevens wrote:
> This may be a matter of perspective and terminology. I definitely agree with Russell that whatever we do must work with existing UPnP/DLNA devices. Working with existing devices is the whole point. However, I think it must be flexible enough that it also works with other existing and emerging device networks (e.g. Bonjour, Bluetooth, etc.)
>
> -Clarke
>
> *From:*public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Russell Berkoff
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:11 AM
> *To:* public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> *Cc:* Giuseppe Pascale; Kazuyuki Ashimura
> *Subject:* RE: FW: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Use Cases for UPnP/DLNA
>
> Hello,
>
> We consider support of (unmodified) UPnP/DLNA devices a requirement rather than a possible implementation approach.
>
> I dont necessarily wish to preclude other solutions that may provide new/additional functionality, however many UPnP/DLNA devices are already deployed in the eco-system and our expectation is that these devices will work within any proposed HNTF framework.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Russell Berkoff
>
> Samsung
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> *From:*Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Wed 5/25/2011 3:33 AM
> *To:* Giuseppe Pascale
> *Cc:* Russell Berkoff; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: FW: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Use Cases for UPnP/DLNA
>
> On 05/25/2011 06:59 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>>  On Tue, 24 May 2011 21:57:32 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org <mailto: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
>

-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 18:24:02 UTC