Re: OHP: Who do you see using it?

From: Peter J. Nuernberg (pnuern)
Date: Tue 10 Jun 1997 - 18:18:06 CDT



> ... For example, if I submit a scenario
> that shows high-ranking military personnel using OHP clients during a
> wartime situation, does that immediately mean we have a requirement to
> support such a use situation? No. Once a scenario has been submitted,
> there is then a process of determining which of the scenarios will be used
> to develop the requirements....

Of course scenarios are discussed once submitted. However, the point behind submitting them when you request a feature to be added is that some features sound better/more useful/etc. in theory than they turn out to be in practice.

> > This may
> >seem like a roundabout way to determine what we are building, but the
> >alternative method of (essentially) asserting that a given set of
> >features is or is not sufficient/necessary is not very effective.
>
> I disagree. What scenarios do is back the discussion up into assertions
> over whether a given scenario is representative of our expected use of the
> technology.

I think it is easier for most people to deal with scenarios than abstracted lists of features. This is in fact why the scenarios were even part of the work the group addresses. It's sometimes easier to propose features than to support their use in a reasonable scenario.

As an example, let's take the current debate about whether or not OHP should include authoring features. Essentially at this point it's a matter of "should not" versus "should so". I can agree or disagree with one or the other side easily, because its abstracted. I'm sure that the matter could only be helped by proponents of the two sides writing scenarios. Once this is done, we can as a group decide whether it's worthwhile building a scenario that includes authoring or not. Here are two (of many) possible outcomes to the scenario work on this subject:

  1. + Browse-only proponents cannot develop a scenario that cannot be handled easily and effectively by existing technology. + Authoring proponents develop scenarios that cannot be handled by existing work, and pose problems we can solve that we feel are interesting.
  2. + Browse-only proponents develop scenarios that cannot be handled by existing work, and pose problems we can solve that we feel are interesting. + Authoring proponents cannot develop a scenario that does not either requires a undue effort to implement, or provides only minimal additional functionality.

Of course these decisions can only be made by consensus, but the scenarios will help us reach this consensus. In any event, you can only help your case by submitting these. It's not that time consuming, and it will promote discussion.

> Actually, I find that adding some context to Jorg's existing scenario makes
> it pertinent for this discussion. In Jorg's scenario, there are two
> collaborators, A and B. In this scenario, the collaborators are at
> different sites, but the network connections between them are not detailed.
> This scenario can be expanded into two cases:
>
> Case 1: Collaborators A and B are using OHP technology at different sites
> behind the same firewall (for example, different facilities of the same
> company)
>
> Case 2: Collaborators A and B are using OHP technology at different sites
> not behind the same firewall (for example, two researchers from different
> institutions collaborating on a standards document, or two engineers from
> different companies working on a cross-company project)
>
> However, having added some extra context to Jorg's scenario, I find we're
> still faced with the same questions: who do we see using OHP technology? _(fwd link)_
> What level of security and authentication should OHP provide?

I think this illustrates my point perfectly. Its a point for discussion grounded in a real-life situation, and is much more likely to be amenable to discussion by the majority of the group than the abstract question of whether or not digital signatures are required.

-Peter



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 13 Aug 2002 - 07:20:49 CDT