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

Hi Fabio,

there might be another solution, which is to decouplethe 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 one could have things like

<task>
   <subtasks> child1, child2, child3 </subtasks>
   <structuring>
       <parallel> child1, child2 </parallel>
       <disabling> child2, child3 </disabling>
   </structuring>
</task>

the difference with the sibling proposal is that it still requires a tree
structure, while the structuing could give rise to a graph connecting nodes
at the same layer of the structure

best
paolo

2014-10-02 10:49 GMT+02:00 Fabio Paternò <fabio.paterno@isti.cnr.it>:

> Dear Sebastian,
>
>
> Thank you for your message. I agree with you that it should be possible to
> have different operators among different subtasks of a given task, and the
> current metamodel does not address this part, differently from the original
> proposal.
>
> Yes, the simplest solution seems to introduce again the sibling relation,
> the only point is to make explicit that it may exist between one task and
> two or more tasks, in this way the temporal operators are not binary but
> n-ary.
>
> David, we would like to update the document at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/task-models/ in this direction, can we do this ?
>
> Best
>
>
> Fabio
>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Sebastian Feuerstack [mailto:feuerstack@offis.de]
> Inviato: mercoledì 1 ottobre 2014 14:03
> A: Fabio Paternò
> Cc: public-mbui@w3.org; Jan-Patrick Osterloh
> Oggetto: Fwd: Re: call for comments on publishing AUI and Task models specs
>
> 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>>>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Paolo Bottoni
Associate Professor of Computer Science

Department of Computer Science
Sapienza - University of Rome
Viale Regina Elena 295
00161 - Roma, Italy

Email: bottoni@di.uniroma1.it

Website:
http://w3.uniroma1.it/dipinfo/scheda_docente.asp?cognome=Bottoni&nome=Paolo

Phone: +39 06 4925 5166

Fax: + 39 06 8541842

Important conferences:

https://sites.google.com/site/vlhcc2015/