- Current status of the working group note (Use Cases should be finalized
- Current status in the two task forces (Task model, Abstract UI)
- Next steps
- Present: UCL (Jean, Francois, Pascal, Vivian), CTIC (Javier, Cristina), CNR (Fabio, Carmen), Jaroslav, Nikos
Please correct the names
Gerrit (due to technical problems with the telephone)
Paterno: asks the link to access Task model contents (google doc file), they will provide the material based on the CTT experience. It can be used as a starting point for discussion.
UCL: informs AUI models contents are provided online, it defines requirements: generic and specific ones, mappings from different contributions, and the meta-model proposal.
Jaroslav: asks about following procedures, e.g. how to suggest sub-classes
Jean: suggests to start by (few) core concepts, then compare among different approaches/languages, and then open to discussion regarding terminology and definitions. He also raises the discussion about how to handle sub-classes. Two approaches are envisaged: extension or comprehension. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Extension: lists all possible values. One scenario for example consists in the simple choice and multiple choice, how to model it. Comprehension: values are logically defined according to attributes. The goal is to fill in the table available in the AUI Model document (see google doc file) by comparing the approaches concerning pre-defined criteria.
Nikos: mentions the combination, the application for basic classes, he prefers comprehension as approach, though he sees the need of a combined approach, once it is hard to use few classes.
Fabio: extension-based approaches tend to reach clearer results.
Jaroslav: prefers a combined approach too, to define sub-classes
Jean: raises the need to define criteria to choose the approach. For example comparing one specific concept modelled by the three different approaches.
Jaroslav: mentions having multiple inheritance hierarchy where the functions are composed
Jean: semantically the multiple inheritance applies, but syntactically he believes the maintenance is difficult. So different impacts are expected from a syntactic and semantical perspective
Jaroslav: agrees, mentions about RDF, and describing similar hierarchies, suggests to discuss this question given the echo problems... try to not be restricted to syntactical requirements, another representation for the models expressing multiple compositions
Jean: agrees, Suggests to evaluate each approach for the same scenario and then choose, decide one representation, in a consent from the group. To be discussed via mailing list.
Jaroslav: asks for suggestions about gathering terminology for this domain, once the Cameleon glossary is quite extensive, requests Jean for more updated contents on this.
Jean: has not so extensive contents as Cameleon. So he suggests to start with few concepts and then extend the list of terms
Jaroslav: suggests to start based on Cameleon list and open it to collaborative discussion, different terms from different languages, but similar definitions. Should this be reflected in our glossary?
Jaroslav: will send the first version of the document then
Jean: will contribute with Similar content (more updated vocabulary) via email
Fabio: asks the definition of Rule and Action (concerning AUI model document)
Jean: replies that rule characterizes the dialog, and exemplifies action as the creation of a new AUIInteractor
Fabio: confirms it is like an event handler
Jean: asks if there are more questions about the document (AUI), invites all to collaborate with its edition, review, suggests to start with the meta-model, and asks collaboration to complete the requirements list as well
Fabio: reminds AUI model should not be restricted to adaptation scenarios
Jean: informs this can be defined in the scope section, but requirements should focus on what and how (e.g. how to express, how to capture...)
Jaroslav: will work on the glossary and send it to the list
Jean: suggests to maintain the source of each concept, to be able to keep track of the original domain, and to compare, analyse and evaluate it later on
Jaroslav: agrees, he will think about the final format of the document, discuss further the definitions, find a consent
Jean: agrees, mentions the comparison between new and old terms. He also mentions how to convert from HTML (google docs) to W3C formats. He mentions the script created by Jose Manuel Cantera.
Jaroslav: can contact him to ask for the conversion script
Jean: believes it is more convincing if Dave or Gerrit contact him. He mentions such script has been already successfully used in the final report of the Incubator Group. So, it can be useful for our context.
Vivian: provides minutes of the call