See also: IRC log
Paolo: In regards to the task model, there is an inconsistency in use of abstraction tasks.
Joelle: should be "abstract task".
Dave: Fabio says he will make some corrections to the spec and we will then ask the group for a CfC
Paolo: there is an error in the diagram and the relationship with ....
Dave: if we apply Paolo's changes are there any objections to publishing the AUI spec?
[no]
Paolo: I've now copied the document to the list.
Dave: do you remember who created the diagram?
Paolo: I will send a corrected diagram to the list
Jaroslav: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mbui/2013Oct/0033.html
Joelle: Gaelle couldn't make the
call today.
... We decided to remove the references, so Gaelle is
right.
Paolo: I agree
(re cross-cutting)
Laufe: what about the first question re abstract task and "abstraction"?
Joelle: we decided to suppress abstraction task and replace it by abstract task.
We don't understand Jaroslav's question re Cross-cutting as a filter.
Joelle: asks Paolo is the current definition for cross-cutting wrong?
Paolo: it isn't really the standard meaning, I would prefer to remove the term altogether
Laufe cross-cutting can be to a higher or to a lower level of abstraction
Joelle: diagonal is up and down
Laufe transforming to a higher level is "abstraction", and to a a lower level is "concretization"
Joelle: maybe the definition of
abstraction is incomplete?
... cross cutting applies to different contexts of use
Paolo: do we have an example in the introduction document?
Laufe: the term is used in the introduction
Joelle: then we need to keep cross-cutting
Paolo: where is the term used, exactly?
Laufe: on the third page ...
Joelle: for abstraction, we don't say "same context of use"
Paolo: can we re-name cross-cuttint "transformation"?
Joelle: then we would also need
to have "abstraction transformation", etc.
... for abstraction we should add "for the same context of
use"
Dave: we should ask Jaroslav to make another round of changes.
Joelle: we still need to discuss "User". It cites target end-user which isn't defined
Paolo: we need to add an explanation
Dave: can anyone propose wording?
Joelle: Archetypal user envisioned for the interactive system
Paolo: but what is the "user"
Joelle: we could suppress "User" since we define user in place for "context of use"
Dave: yes
[general agreement]
Dave: anything else to discuss on the glossary?
Paolo: Re interaction modality, I agree with Gaelle.
Joelle: I would like to keep (b) Coupling of an interaction device peripheral with an interaction language.
Paolo: yes, let's keep both.
Joelle: recommended synonyms that are used without being defined. We should drop concrete interactor.
Paolo: we keep Concrete Interaction Unit , right?
Joelle: yes
... we need to check for consistency
That argues for "concrete interactor" in place of "concrete interaction unit" since we already have "abstract interactor".
We should add an entry "concrete interactor" as a synonym for consistency and completeness
We need to check for entries that are in the google doc but not in the WG Note
Dave: Jaraslav can come back to us with a revised WG Note.
Dave: what are we missing before we are ready to publish it?
Joelle: some missing pictures from UCL.
Dave: I will check with UCL and then proceed to prepare a draft WG Note for the Introduction.
The clock shifts this weekend in Europe but not in North America. This might result in having to use a different code for the call for next week, I will check.
Paolo: next week is a holiday in Italy.
Joelle: also in France
Dave and Paolo are travelling the week after that.
Dave: Let's take the date of the
next call to email.
... end of meeting ...