W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > November 2008

Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) for the guidelines

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:32:46 +0100
Message-ID: <492BE25E.9050009@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Hi,

Per ACTION-846, I was to prepare an implementation conformance statement 
(ICS) for the Guidelines that could be used by "Transformation 
Deployment" products to specify reasons for non conformance with SHOULD 
or SHOULD NOT clauses in their way to claim conformance to the guidelines.

Appendix B. could be the place where this would fit:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-ConformanceStatement

I thought it would be cleaner if we had a companion document though. I 
prepared a first draft of such a document, available at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-081107

FWIW, I based the document on the ICS document of the QA Specification 
Guidelines:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-qaframe-spec-20050817/specgl-ics.html

Thanks to some XSL stylesheet, the table is automatically filled from 
the guidelines document. It is not perfect yet. I wonder if I should 
trim the excerpts to the sentence instead of the paragraph and/or if I 
should complete some of them with more context (the bullet list in the 
second excerpt from the 4.1.5 section for instance).

If we want the ICS statement to be complete, we may want to add a line 
along the lines of "compliance with all the MUST/MUST NOT clauses". I 
had listed such clauses in the table as well, but removed them, since 
the emphasis we want to make here is on the SHOULD/SHOULD NOT clauses 
(besides, the table would quickly grow out of control and basically 
contain the whole spec...)

Comments welcome!

Francois.
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:33:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:33:22 GMT