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

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

From: Paolo Bottoni <bottoni@di.uniroma1.it>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 17:35:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAhAGAafJ6LBvVuMVq39F250Yt=P-=NB4a-AnCjqE29Qe5Nrgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fabio Paternò <fabio.paterno@isti.cnr.it>
Cc: Sebastian Feuerstack <feuerstack@offis.de>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, "public-mbui@w3.org" <public-mbui@w3.org>, Jan-Patrick Osterloh <osterloh@offis.de>
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/
Received on Saturday, 4 October 2014 15:35:56 UTC

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