RE: [uiml] Schedule of items to be completed before votingontheCommittee Specification

[Kris Luyten <kris.luyten@uhasselt.be>]

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:53 -0800, James Helms wrote:
> Thanks for all the excellent feedback!  I will add both of your items to
> my schedule of remaining tasks.

> > > specification to have a 4.0 specification? (don't want to start a 
> > > riot here, just to make sure there is a good motivation for doing
> this).
> > 
> > I think so, additional to minor changes we introduced three major 
> > modifications (layout, variables with arithmetic, template parameters)
> 
> > which resulted in about 10 new elements and has effects on most 
> > elements of the specification.
> >
> 
> <JIM> I agree with Robbie.  We have increased the number of tags in the
> language by about 25% (depending on how you look at it), and increased
> the complexity of the language several fold :). Don't misunderstand me,
> I think the additional flexibility provided is very useful and the
> additions are well received. </JIM>

OK by me.

>  
> > > - Can we split up the document, e.g. like the GRDDL specification 
> > > does
> > > it:
> > >  => Specification Document (Metamodel, Namespaces, Schema and DTD 
> > > stuff, explanation for each element, mainly suitable for 
> > > implementers of UIML renderers and translators, but also for UIML 
> > > users to get to know the details)  => Use Case Document (cases that 
> > > cover the whole specification, with examples, suitable for testing 
> > > UIML renderers and translators but also for UIML users)  => Primer 
> > > document  (introduction document to the technology, links to 
> > > implementation, suitable for UIML users)
> > 
> > Would be very nice to have, but this would probably delay the 
> > completion of the standard.
> 
> Actually, I suggested this so we can complete the standard sooner: the
> specification document contains the actual standard and should be less
> in volume since the other two documents complement it with additional
> materials now (extensive examples, implementation details etc.).
> 
> <JIM> Kris, could you describe how you think it will speed the process?
> My first thought mirrored Robbie's...  Would the specification document
> hold basically no examples? 

The specification should only contain small examples such as is the case
for most elements so for a large part of the document this would not
change anything. But I think the next sections could be omitted from a
specification document and included in another (cross-referenced)
document:
- 6.2.1. Naming an Existing Vocabulary in <presentation> (at least part
of it)
- 6.2.2. Creating a New Vocabulary Using <presentation>
- 7.3 Practical use of templates

>  Instead they would be contained in the
> separate use case docs?  I think I see how the divisions would work, but
> would like to make sure I understand correctly?  Maybe you could provide
> a brief outline of each document to give us a better idea of the
> content?</JIM> 

I am not sure myself (my remark was inspired by the GRDDL
specification), but here is an attempt:

Outline of the specification would be mostly the same as it is now, just
remove the parts that do not contribute to the specification itself. I
admit this is not that much.

The Use Case document should contain some larger examples that show the
usefulness and applicability of UIML for "flexible user interface design
and development". 

A primer document should contain an introduction ("what is it", "how to
use the language" (cross-referencing the use cases), "what are the
tools", "how to use the tools").

Regards,
Kris
-- 
Kris Luyten
Assistant Professor
Expertisecentrum voor Digitale Media - Hasselt University
Wetenschapspark 2, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
tel.: +32 (0)11 268411
email: kris.luyten@uhasselt.be
web: http://research.edm.uhasselt.be/kris