How to deal with the feedback from the TFs working on each specification

[chachamimm]

There are two approaches to describe Use Cases.

• Top-down use case proposal
• Bottom-up use case proposal

"Top-down use case proposal" is proposal by stakeholders. "Bottom-up use case proposal" is the feedback from TFs working on each specification. "Bottom-up use case proposal" includes use case proposal based on necessary features.

In general, use case approach is "Top-down use case proposal". So We have to discuss to handle "Bottom-up use case proposal"

Pleas see also Pull Request - 262 Task Force Issue Filtering Process #262.

[egekorkan]

A technically knowledgable stakeholder can also propose bottom-up use cases:

1. This is the case of many issues submitted to TD where an outsider (not TF participant) has something they cannot do with TD (and thus WoT).
2. There are people implementing WoT specs and find gaps, then they add something themselves that is not standard-conform. There are multiple examples in the WoT CG meetups.

I am strongly advocating for not spending time on top-down use cases for driving standardisation work with reasons noted below. Top-down use cases are relevant for marketing and outreach. If there is a gap we identify from a top-down use case, I am open to change my mind but I haven't seen it yet.

• We already have a lot of bottom-up use cases that can keep us occupied for 2 charters.
• Working on top-down use cases require more time investment since we need to sit down with the submitter and understand what they need. That is what I call "consulting work" because it can turn out (after 1 month) that their use case is doable with the current standards we have. Given that the WG is about 10 people who actively work, we do not have the bandwidth to do such work. If we do this, there is a risk of no new specs published by the WG...