Re: call for comments on publishing task models spec

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Marín Prendes
CTIC-Centro Tecnológico
Responsable de Unidad de Movilidad e Independencia de Dispositivo
Área de I+D+i
(Manager for Device Independence and Mobility / R&D Department)
Parque Científico y Tecnológico de Gijón
c/ Ada Byron, 39 Edificio Centros Tecnológicos
33203 Gijón - Asturias - España
Tel.: +34 984 29 12 12
Mobile: +34 657 30 59 55
Fax: +34 984 39 06 12
E-mail: ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org
http://www.fundacionctic.org
Política de Privacidad: http://www.fundacionctic.org/privacidad
Privacy Policy: http://www.fundacionctic.org/privacidad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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
>
>
>