MBUI Telecon 2012 September 6

From W3C Wiki

Chaired by: Marius, scribed by Dave

Present

  • Dave Raggett, W3C
  • Fabio Paterno, ISTI
  • Carmen Santoro, ISTI
  • Davide Spano, ISTI
  • Nikolas Kaklanis, ITI
  • Paolo Bottini, University of Rome
  • Javoslav Pullman, Fraunhofer
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
  • Vivian Motti, UCL
  • Pascal Beaujeant, UCL
  • Sebastian Feuerstack, USC

Regrets

  • Gaelle Calvary, LIG
  • Joelle Coutaz, LIG
  • Gerrit Meixner, DFKI


Planned Agenda

  1. Appointment of new Co-Chair
  2. Registering and booking accommodation for Lyon face to face
  3. Progress on the Abstract UI specification
  4. Progress on the Introduction to MBUI and Glossary

We are under time pressure to advance the Abstract UI spec to First Public Working Draft status.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UGZz_xaPuSbMtRb4a-14tM9CM8tHmbEWuLVuNNnx25o/edit 

 The current editor's draft includes a section on the state of the art.

Do we want this here or should it be part of the introductory document?

How far away are we on finishing the W3C AUI meta-model? Do we want to include an OWL ontology in parallel with the UML definition? What are the remaining issues?

Minutes

Appointment of new Co-Chair

Dave: I am pleased to announce that Fabio is no officially a Co-Chair along with Gerrit. Fabio and Gerrit will be able to share duties and to delegate chairing of meetings if appropriate. The aim is to take some of the pressure off Gerrit who has been very busy with other things.

Registering and booking accommodation for Lyon face to face

See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/

Fabio: do we need only one day?

Dave: This is something we need to discuss and fix soon.

Dave: Do we want 2 days, or just one day after lunch, then finishing at lunch the next day?

Carmen: that works best for us.

Fabio: let's agree to do that.

Paolo: I can't make the first half of the week.

Dave: we can't change to the 2nd half of the week at this point.

Jaroslav: will one day be sufficient, what are the deadlines for the documents?

Dave: the AUI spec is critical and the others are valuable but could come later.

Sebastian: there are lots of open points to discuss on the AUI, we need time at the face to face.

Jaroslav agrees that two half days is too short.

Jean: we can update the glossary after reaching agreement on the AUI.

Dave: if we want more than two half days, we need a counter proposal. Perhaps we need a poll.

Fabio: yes, please do.

Action: Dave to set up a poll for the various options for the Lyon F2F

Resolution: the Lyon F2F will be two half days, starting Monday afternoon and continuing Tuesday morning.

Progress on the Abstract UI specification

Progress on the Introduction to MBUI and Glossary

We are under time pressure to advance the Abstract UI spec to First Public Working Draft status.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UGZz_xaPuSbMtRb4a-14tM9CM8tHmbEWuLVuNNnx25o/edit


The current editor's draft includes a section on the state of the art. Do we want this here or should it be part of the introductory document?

How far away are we on finishing the W3C AUI meta-model? Do we want to include an OWL ontology in parallel with the UML definition? What are the remaining issues?

Jean: we have tried to address the comments from last time, but have not made progress during the Summer break. Now plan to focus each week on questions one by one.

Fabio: that seems reasonable as a procedure. Is this a single or two part document?

Jean: one.

Paolo: this morning I added (??)...

Dave: do we need to keep the background material in the AUI spec given the introductory working group note?

Jean: it has been helpful in the short term. We should split the definition, keeping the main definition in the flow of the document, and the rest in a table at the end.

Fabio: we should be consistent with the other documents, and avoid duplication.

Jean: at the moment the synonym definition is in the flow of the text, and could be moved to the end later. We want to ensure that we don't forget anything.

Jaroslav: we have some synonyms in the glossary, and this would need to be aligned.

Jean: we definitely need to check for consistency.

Dave: Jean you said in email that you were interested in providing an OWL ontology in parallel with the UML metamodel?

Jean: we want to refine the UML metamodel and once that stabilizes to add the ontology.

Jaroslav: a Canadian colleague is asking for practical explanation for developers. The XML schema in the task document has proved helpful.

Fabio: an requirements section would be interesting

Jean: we should have a general requirements and specific ones. The general requirements should be separate, is that okay with you?

Fabio: yes. Did you look at Paolo's comments?

Jean: yes, mostly.

Paolo explains ...

Jean: we could have more general requirements for abstract class and some possible means to realize it.

Paolo: should I talk through the details of my comments, one by one now, or should we do this later?

Jean: we could discuss very important comments now.

Paolo: one is related to the use of aggregation, another is on abstract selection where this an attribute on discrete versus continuous selection.

Fabio: what does Jean mean by presenting in a continuous way?

Jean: unbroken sequences vs broken sequences e.g. Monday, Wednesday, Thursday which omits Tuesday.

Jean: maybe we can add this to the definitions.

Fabio: I would have expected this to be the way an abstract type is used (defined)

Fabio: the abstract selection could use a special type for this.

Jean: the type is automatically derived from the ...

Paolo: this should be presented as a class.

Fabio: two classes would be preferable to allow for composition

Paolo: why do you say an abstract selection has to be an abstract compound?

Jean: you have a hierarchy of interaction units

Fabio: we need a way to express composition attributes, it is not clear how that can be done with your approach

Fabio: You can express the composition but not the specific attributes over it

Jean: right now it is hard to see how, so we plan to introduce an example

Dave: that sounds like a good idea

Fabio: let's make some time for discussing the working group notes, okay?

Jean: yes.

Sebastian: I have some problems with the current treatment of compounds and localization too.

Jean: we are planning to discuss class by class over the next few calls.

Dave suggests posting questions on the mailing list for Jean to deal with either via email or in the next call.

Progress on the Introduction to MBUI and Glossary

Jaroslav: no progress on the glossary due to vacation.

Fabio: we have a long list of editors for the introductory document?

Jaroslav: may be we should appoint someone to take the lead for the intro document? I don't have the time myself to take on that role.

Fabio: is there any volunteer?

Jean: we can try to contribute, and see what needs to be changed


end of meeting

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=MBUI_Telecon_2012_September_6&oldid=60622"