W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mbui@w3.org > July 2012

Re: call for comments on publishing task models spec

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:24:21 +0100
Message-ID: <50059FC5.90709@w3.org>
To: Ignacio Marin <ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-mbui@w3.org
Many thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address them, so
please reload the document in your browser.


Note that I have attempted to adjust the grammar and wording to improve
readability, but there has been no substantive changes. I have
introduced CTT as an abbreviation for ConcurTaskTrees and used the abbr
element for all instances of CTT - hover the mouse over CTT to see the

We need to publish the task model specification as soon as possible as
we are very late in publishing our first working draft. This will only
be a First Public Working Draft, and we will have time to make further
changes as we head for a stable document and the Last Call Working
Draft. We should publish the introductory note and the glossary as soon
as they are considered ready, but W3C Management would not want us to
delay publishing the Task Model spec for that.

On 17/07/12 13:17, Ignacio Marin wrote:
> Here we come with CTIC's comments. Most of them are wording and aesthetic
> issues.
> - Perhaps the document should refer to the "Introduction" and "Glossary" WG
> Note. We should consider whether to make sure that some of the concepts
> mentioned in the document are described in the glossary. If so, we may
> review the document looking for unreferenced terms. One example is
> Concurrent Task Trees. Although it is defined in the document, perhaps it
> should also be mentioned in the glossary.
> - The table should have a title preceded by "Table 1"
> - With regard to Concurrent Task Trees, the terms is mentioned as
> ConcurTaskTrees and CTT without any relationship established between the
> three terms.
> - Introduction:
>     - There are three sentences in a row starting with "Task models". Maybe
> they should be in a single paragraph and use connectors to avoid the
> repetition.
>     - The third sentence in broken after a comma.
>     - The last sentence ("The initial proposal is based on the widely
> known, and internationally adopted ConcurTaskTrees notation, further
> improvements can be added, if useful.") perhaps should be "The initial
> proposal is based on the widely adopted ConcurTaskTrees notation. Further
> variations to this notation may be added in the future, if useful."
> - The fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs after Table 1 may be more legible
> by using bullets instead of writing in a single paragraph with a lot of
> text between brackets. For instance, the XML Schema Definition section uses
> bullets to enumerate and it seems more readable to us.
> - The sentence "A precondition (which can occur...") starting the third
> paragraph after Figure 1 is hard to read. A try to improve the wording: "A
> precondition is an instance of the ConditionGroup class, which contains a
> number of operands and an operator. It can occur or not, associated to a
> specific task, as suggested by the 0..1 multiplicity in Figure 1"
> - Most of the occurrences of the adjective "following" are not accompanied
> by a name.
> Our main concern is that the main audience for W3C technical documents
> (perhaps, web developers, although we have stated that MBUI applies to
> other technological spaces) may feel confused when reading this document,
> if it is released before the Introduction and Glossary documents. In our
> opinion, it is also important to use an example to guide developers through
> the whole  MBUI process. Maybe reusing the car rental example in all our
> documents (mainly, Task Models and Abstract UI) in a consistent way would
> be important.
> Best regards,
> Cristina, Javier and Nacho

Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 17:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:22 UTC