W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: A few comments on SpecGL

From: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:45:18 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020801153415.0213b2d8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

In my opinion, I do not see any conflict in the use of the term "clause" 
the glossary specifically define it as a "part" not a section of the 
specification and the checkpoint reiterate that position . Ck. 10-2 does 
not contradict the idea it only makes a recommendation. If the term 
"clause" continues to be misleading, I recommend the term "Conformance 
Statement(s)".

Sandra


At 01:03 PM 8/1/2002 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>QAWG --
>
>At 05:27 PM 7/30/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
>>[...]
>>Ck 10.1: Change the word "clause" to something else? I'd favor a
>>change. I think this came from the NIST people, so maybe one of them
>>can comment further.
>
>Any comments from NIST people?
>
>http://www.w3.org/QA/Glossary defines conformance clause as:  "Part of a 
>specification which defines the requirements that must be satisfied to 
>claim conformance to part of the specification." is the definition of 
>conformance clause.
>
>I think our current SpecGL draft is better in avoiding the implication 
>that conformance clause is a discrete document section: "A conformance 
>clause is a part or collection of parts of a specification that defines 
>the requirements, criteria, or conditions to be satisfied by an 
>implementation or application in order to claim conformance"
>
>We can either live the term and just disambiguate it -- CK10.1 already 
>contains this new sentence, "As used in this checkpoint, "clause" does not 
>necessarily imply a specific single document section or location (see next 
>checkpoint)"
>
>Or we can search for a better phrase to replace "conformance clause".
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>>Ck 11.1: Avoid overloading the word "levels"? A big +1 from me!
>>.................David Marston
>
>CK11.1:  "Identify and define all conformance levels or designations."
>
>Candidates for a replacement word for "levels":
>
>degrees
>flavors
>types
>categories
>thingies
>foobars
>...other?...
>
>Alternative approach:
>
>Section 8.2.1 of [1] says:  "A specification may differentiate conformance 
>claims by designating different degrees of conformance in order to apply 
>and group requirements according to profiles or [functional] levels or to 
>indicate the permissibility of extensions.  When a conformance claim is 
>linked to functionality, impact, and/or incremental degrees of 
>implementation, the term conformance level is often used to indicate the 
>varying degrees of conformance."
>
>So maybe it would suffice to make sure that "level" always has a qualifier 
>in front of it, "functional" or "conformance", and make sure that each is 
>clearly defined.  (And convert the "@@" comment right after [2] into 
>proper prose.)
>
>What do you think?
>
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ioc/documents/conformance_requirements-v1.pdf
>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-spec-0729#Ck-define-all-levels

Sandra I. Martinez
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

(301) 975-3579
sandra.martinez@nist.gov
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 15:49:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT