- 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>
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 Gerrit ======================== 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 Tel./Fax/Mobile/E-Mail/Web +49 (0) 631 / 205 75 3415 +49 (0) 631 / 205 75 3402 +49 (0) 157 / 725 95 865 Gerrit.Meixner@dfki.de http://www.dfki.de ======================== Legal statement: Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 67663 Kaiserslautern Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender), Dr. Walter Olthoff 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 comments. 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