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

AW: MBUI limitation

From: Gerrit Meixner <Gerrit.Meixner@dfki.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:28:53 +0200
To: "'Dave Raggett'" <dsr@w3.org>
Cc: <public-mbui@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000901cd7e8c$4fff1210$effd3630$@dfki.de>
Hi Dave,

thanks for forwarding the comment by Yan.

Here I guess we can see the different views people have on a specification
again. XML-based languages in MBUID have a long tradition and are well
established in this community.
Also in practice XML-based languages for e.g., infotainment systems are
specified in such a way (e.g., OEM-XML, AbstractHMI).
We had many talks about the different possibilities for using a specific
notation. People have arguments for paper-based informal specifications and
people have arguments for (more) formal specifications.
It depends on the user (group) you are asking. Often the least common
denominator is a XML-based language. But in the end it doesn't matter which
way you go (XML or RDF/OWL) because you will always need powerful tools to
support people.

What do the others think about the comment of Yan?

Best regards

Dr.-Ing. Gerrit Meixner
Head of the Human-Machine-Interaction group

German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)
Innovative Factory Systems (IFS)
Trippstadter Strasse 122
67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany

+49 (0) 631 / 205 75 3415
+49 (0) 631 / 205 75 3402
+49 (0) 157 / 725 95 865
Legal statement: 
Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
67663 Kaiserslautern

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender), Dr. Walter
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: 
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2012 21:40
An: Yan Bodain
Cc: public-mbui@w3.org
Betreff: Re: MBUI limitation

Thank you for your feedback, I am forwarding it to the MBUI list for

On 04/08/12 22:28, Yan Bodain wrote:
> Hi
> I am a software developper with a strong background in Cognitive 
> Ergonomics (PhD degre from Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal) and also 
> in semantic technologies.
> I am writing this email because I was extremly surprised by the first 
> draft of MBUI.
> I think you have mist a great opportuny to make your model usefull by 
> using a XML Schema instead of using a combinaison of semantic 
> descriptions (RDF, OWL).
> For example, in many places, you have listed the values that are legal 
> for some XML attribut. But if you had choosen to link these values to 
> an ontology class instead, it would have made your model more usefull 
> (because it would let the system navigate inside a hiearchy of task 
> and find a task directly related to the local context or domain)
> To resume, the first draft of MBUI is great a excercice for someone 
> working as ergonomist, cognitive engineering or artificial 
> intelligence but it as poor value for someone who build software, 
> portal solution or knowledge system for entreprise.
> Coming from the W3C, I was hopping that the MBUI documentation would 
> not only help ergonomist but also practionner.
> If you decide to develop your model further, I will be happy to help 
> you to migrate your XML model to a semantic one.
> Or, at least, find someone who is familiar with semantic technologies 
> (why not ask Tim Berners-Lee?) in order to validate the context of 
> application of your MBUI draft.
> Best regards
> Yan Bodain, PhD.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 04:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:16 UTC