W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mbui@w3.org > October 2014

Fwd: Re: call for comments on publishing AUI and Task models specs

From: Sebastian Feuerstack <feuerstack@offis.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:03:03 +0200
Message-ID: <542BED77.6060608@offis.de>
To: Fabio PaternĂ² <fabio.paterno@isti.cnr.it>
CC: public-mbui@w3.org, Jan-Patrick Osterloh <osterloh@offis.de>
Dear Fabio, (CC w3c MBUI)

Recently i stumbled upon the W3C task meta model. Compared to your
original working group submission: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/ctt/
it lacks the explicit "sibling" relation.

Maybe i missed something but i do not remember why it was removed
and included into SubTask relation in the Working Group note:
http://www.w3.org/TR/task-models/

By including it in the SubTask relationship the use of different n-ary
operators on the same abstraction layer is no longer possible (confirm
below). I

It seems to me that the included car reservation example (the layer:
"Enter Info", "Submit Request" and "AccessService",..") cannot be
expressed with this model and the included schema.

Kind regards,
Sebastian

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Dear Sebastian,
>
> I think you are right. The metamodel in the end reflected the current
> CTT model, which has that sort of limitation. Also the introduction of
> an additional subtask would not solve the problem, as composition is
> used there, so parts can only belong to one whole.
>
> What you propose would be realisable by decoupling the description of
> the subcomponents from the description of their relations. So, one would
> have a Structuring entity, associated with the task and then the tasks
> associated with that structuring, but the structuring entity should
> result in a collection of operators, each with its subtasks.
>
> So your example would be
>
> <task>
>    <subtasks> child1, child2, child3 </subtasks>
>    <structuring>
>        <parallel> child1, child2 </parallel>
>        <disabling> child2, child3 </disabling>
>    </structuring>
> </task>
>
> or something like that. I might have even proposed something more in
> this line, even though I was not thinking of your example
>
> Of course, this is not currently implemented, and might make
> verification and simulation quite hard, but it is an interesting line to
> pursue
>
> best
> paolo
>
> 2014-09-30 16:30 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Feuerstack <feuerstack@offis.de
> <mailto:feuerstack@offis.de>>:
>
> Dear Paulo,
>
> Recently i stumbled upon the W3C task meta model. I appreciate your
> UML knowledge and maybe you can enlight me, what i understood wrong?
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/task-models/#fig2
>
> The class model the SubTask relation is used to
> enable task de-composition. At the same time this
> relation depends on an N-ary Operator.
>
> To my understanding we forgot the "sibling" aggregation
> to consider the case that more than two sub-tasks share the same
> parent task but with different n-ary operator relations between them?
>
> Thus, with the current XSD i can express:
>
> <TaskModel>
>     <Abstract Identifier="parent_1">
>         <Enabling>
>             <Interaction Identifier="child_1"></Interaction>
>             <User Identifier="child_2"></User>
>             <Interaction Identifier="child_3"></Interaction>
>         </Enabling>
>     </Abstract>
> </TaskModel>
>
> But how do i state a parallel relation between child_1 and child_2
> and a disabling between child_2 and child 3?
>
> This seems to be only possible by introducing another "artifical"
> sub-task level. But in this case we do not need operator priorities
> like stated in 3.1, or do we?
>
> Thanks for your help and greetings from Oldenburg,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> Am 25.10.2013 11:52, schrieb Paolo Bottoni:
>> Concerning the task model, section 3.2 mentions abstraction tasks
>> and section 3.3 abstract tasks. These should be made uniform. I
>> would prefer Abstract task, in this case. Then, the decision must
>> be checked with the glossary and with the other usages in the
>> Document (e.g. metamodel of Figure 2 and XML Schema)
>
>> paolo
>
>
>> 2013/10/18 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>
> <mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>>
>
>> This is a call for comments on transitioning the abstract UI to a
>> First Public Working Draft, and update the task models Working
>> Draft to conform to the policy for W3C namespaces.
>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/mbui/__drafts/abstract-ui/
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/mbui/drafts/abstract-ui/>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/mbui/__drafts/task-models/
>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/mbui/drafts/task-models/>
>
>> The AUI now includes the schema prepared by Davide. I have revised
>>  the namespace URIs to conform to the W3C policy and placed
>> descriptions at the location of the namespace URIs.
>
>> If there are no objections by 25 October 2013, the plan will be for
>> the chairs to formally resolve to publish the above drafts, and I
>> will then work with the W3C Webmaster to publish them on the W3C TR
>> page.
>
>> Many thanks,
>
>> -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> <mailto:dsr@w3.org
> <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>>


Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:33:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:20 UTC