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

Re: call for comments on publishing task models spec

From: Vivian Motti <vivian.genaromotti@uclouvain.be>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:28:02 +0200
Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Message-Id: <13A9CFA2-6989-4ACC-B02E-3C2F92901012@uclouvain.be>
To: public-mbui@w3.org
Dear all,

  As we are not managing to attend the call, we would like to raise some questions via email.

  - How can we express with operators simple and multiple choices? Basically, is it possible to distinguish them?
  - There are additional task types that should be also integrated. For instance, the ones mentioned at: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/iag/documents/WP_8_Gonzalez.pdf
  - An 'alias' or 'synonym' could be added to the current task names, helping to trace equivalencies.

 I tried to send these concerns in a previous email, although the message status says it was processed and approved, it was not received... maybe because of the attached paper...

Best regards,

On 19 Jul 2012, at 00:35, Paolo Bottoni wrote:

> Hi everybody.
> Thanks Dave and the CTT group for putting this together.
> Here are my comments.
> Concerning operators.
> Interleaving (T1 ||| T2 |||  TN): The connected tasks can be
> performed concurrently, without any specific constraint.
> Order independence (T1|=|T2 |=|  TN): the tasks can be performed in any order;
> Synchronisation (T1|[]|T2 |[]|  TN): The tasks are synchronised each other;
> Parallelism (T1||T2 ||  TN): The tasks are performed in true paralllelism.
> I think that the semantics should be a bit more precise, with respect
> to Task decomposition.
> As I would intend it, from the names
> Interleaving would meanthat any subtask of any task can be performed
> at any step,
> Order independence would mean that any task can be started when no
> other task is running, but no other task can be started once one has
> started until that one is finished
> Synchronisation would mean that each task must advance one step at the
> same time. This opens the problem whether all tasks must execute the
> same number of subtasks or some can end before the others.
> Parallelism would mean that any subset of subtasks from any task can
> be performed at each step.
> In all cases, the whole task is completed when all subtasks are completed.
> Is this the intended meaning?
> Are disabling, enabling and suspend-resume? It seems to me that a
> reasonable semantics can be given only for the binary case. Then,
> notationally, one could also indicate a chain of disabling, enabling,
> etc. But if we consider them as n-ary, without imposing an order, it
> is not clear what is enabling what, as I do not see a natural notion
> of distribution for these operators). If we are imposing an order, are
> we saying that T1>>T2>>  TN means that T1 enables T2 which enables
> .... which enables TN, or that T1 enables the fact that T2 enables ...
> that enables the fact that TN-1 enables TN. I guess the intended
> meaning is the first, which is however a chaining of binary relations.
> (This is different from the previous set of operators, which are
> naturally distributive)
> I am not sure we really need the user and abstraction tasks type. How
> are we checking that the user is planning or doing some
> problem-solving? From the operational view, we can only specify the
> system and the interaction activities.
> Concerning the definition of ConditionLiteral, I am not very happy
> with the fact that it has two attributes, only one of which is to be
> used at each time? Why not use ValueSpecification from the UML2
> metamodel, which can then be a LiteralSpecification, an Expression, an
> InstanceValue (for reference types) or even an OpaqueExpression
> (written in some executable language). This is what actually happens
> in UML2 when one expresses constraints by providing
> ValueSpecifications.
> talk to you tomorrow!!
> best
> paolo
> 2012/7/16 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>:
>> This is a call for comments on publishing the following document as a
>> First Public Working Draft:
>>  http://www.w3.org/2011/mbui/drafts/task-models/
>> My aim is to ask for a formal resolution in this week's MBUI telecon to
>> publish the document.
>> p.s. this was derived from the Google Doc, although it took quite a bit
>> of work!
>> --
>> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
> -- 
> Paolo Bottoni
> Associate Professor of Computer Science
> Email: bottoni@di.uniroma1.it
> Website: http://w3.uniroma1.it/dipinfo/scheda_docente.asp?cognome=Bottoni&nome=Paolo
> Phone: +39 06 49918426
> Fax: + 39 06 8541842
> Important conferences:
> http://www.etaps.org/
> http://www.diagrams-conference.org/2012/
> http://vlhcc2012.di.unisa.it/
> http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/icgt2012/
> http://www.dsmforum.org/events/GMLD12/
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 11:29:15 UTC

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