MBUI Telecon 2012 October 4

From W3C Wiki
Revision as of 14:15, 18 October 2012 by Slucioda (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Gerrit Meixener
  • Jaroslaw Pullman
  • Nikos
  • Paolo Bottoni
  • Sebastian
  • Joelle Coutaz
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
  • Fabio Paternò
  • Davide Spano


Abstract UI document

  • Paolo asks whether the AUI meta-model we are defining should be a reference that all our languages should conform to, or if we are going to define a new language. Fabio thinks that we are going to create a new meta-model and a new associated language. The authors of the existing languages have the freedom to decide to conform to it or to map their languages to the proposed one. Sebastian agrees with Fabio, saying that people may have different needs and create subclasses for that. Paolo says that there is also the possibility to explicitly say that a language is conform to the meta-model, providing the mapping of concepts between the language and the standard.
  • Discussion about the requirements for the standard implementation. Fabio says that we are required to provide two different implementations of the standard, which are supposed to be interoperable. Therefore, it should be possible to export the model with an implementation and open it with the other and vice-versa. Jean says that it should be sufficient to include an Import/Export function from and to the standard language.
  • Discussion on the abstract syntax for the AUI language. Jean says that we should propose something that is not implementation-dependent, providing an XSD or an OWL description. It is not clear if we should stop at the abstract syntax or if we are going to provide also a concrete one. Paolo says that there are two possible ways to create the language: referring the concepts either through subclassing or through instantiation. He will write a section on the document explaining the two possibilities.
  • Document refinement for Lyon. Jean proposes to continue modifying the draft document, stopping a week before the Lyon meeting. At that time, the will prepare a version to be discussed in Lyon. The participants should create their list of questions in order to speed-up the discussion at the F2F. Everybody agrees.
  • AUI concept. Joelle noticed that we have still a fuzzy view on what should be modelled at the abstract level and what should not. She proposes to stick to a shared definition and try to apply it to decide. Sebastian says that, in addition, we should remove the concepts that do not have the consensus. Fabio says that this is correct in theory, but we may end to have almost nothing modelled, therefore we should be careful.

Working group note

  • Sebastian says that the use cases are really different in the level of detail. Some of them are too generic. Joelle suggests to describe scenarios that we already implemented in our own projects, in order to have a good level of detail. Jean says that we should in addition mention the benefits of MBUI approaches. Fabio and Jean may provide references to comparative studies (whit and without MBUI development).
  • Nikos' section on user modelling. It is a very detailed description of a user model. Jean and Fabio suggest to create a shorter version with a more brief description of the concepts, moving the details into an appendix or a separate document.

Heiko's email about the Task model XSD

  • Fabio says that the problems mentioned were simply typos and that they have been fixed. We are waiting for Dave in order to publish the updated version of the XSD.


  • Write a section on instantiation and subclassing on the AUI document (Paolo)
  • Refine the AUI meta-model description (All)
  • Refine the level of detail of the use cases in the Working Group Note (Use case responsibles)
  • Publish the fixed version of the task model xsd (Dave)