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

[DRAFT] Minutes from the QA WG 2002-08-21 teleconference

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:30:17 -0400
To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c24a3c$526c07e0$101f0681@9tys201>

[Please note that the link to the previous telcon minutes are the Draft
minutes, If you know the link to the 'final' version of those minutes-
please send it to me]

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 21-August-2002
Scribe: Lynne

(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)

(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

Summary of New Action Items:
-AI-20020821-1 dd to construct email message for sending out questionnaire
[1].  Due Monday 26 Aug.
-AI-20020821-2 LH to send questionnaire to chairs list. Due Monday 2 Sept
-AI-20020821-3 DH to send questionnaire to Team. Due Monday 2 Sept
-AI-20020821-4 LH to write up an issue for CK10-5 - handling of legacy
-AI-20020821-5 LH to write up an issue for GL 8 - should there be a new CK
to require explicit documentation of interoperability impacts
-AI-20020821-6 LH to write ground rules for techniques analysis review and
call for sign ups.

Agenda:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0134.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:

1. Roll call
See above

2. Logistical Topics
*F2F Meeting in Tokyo. Details given at <http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/10/f2f>.
If you haven’t done so yet, please make your hotel reservations.
Plans are to provide wireless network connection.  If you prefer a wired
network connection, contact Olivier directly and cc the qa-wg

[Since dd leave early, do Agenda item 4 prior to 3]

4. Questionnaire for doc technologies

*Questionnaire completion
dd sent draft of questionnaire to WG list earlier today.  An introduction
was added as well as a clarification question as proposed by LH.  The
introduction provides a rationale for using structured markup, indicates
that we look forward to receiving comments, and that it will only take about
5 minutes to complete.
ACTION for All: Anyone who wants to supply feedback on the questionnaire has
until 24 August (the end of this week).  See AI-20020821-1 (for dd)

*Interactive web form (CGI form) or as email message.
In an email, Olivier identified a form from another WG as a possible
starting point - from which we could adapt for our use.  DH has concerns
about the maintenance and security of using the form.  dd - It would be
necessary for someone to adapt the form and rewriting may take longer than
to write one from scratch. DH, depends on how it was done - maybe, maybe
not.  Do we want to spend time on an interactive form? LH - would we be more
likely to get people to fill the questionnaire if we had an interactive form
vs. email with checkboxes?  DH may be easier to have as an email, but if
interactive form, we can do queries.  Using CGI script would provide for
simplicity in processing the results. LH wants the questionnaire to go out
week after next, so we have results by F2F.  DH recommends email, since only
expect about 20 replies (since there are 30 WGs)  Emails would be archived.
DH asked if there would be problems with member confidentiality?  dd doesn’t
think so since the questionnaire doesn’t ask those types of questions. DH
suggests using email and having people respond to a specific person (e.g.,
dd or DH) as well as to the qa-wg.  AGREED - sent questionnaire via email.
See AI-20020821-2 and AI-20020821-3 (for LH and DH)

3. Action Items Review/cleanup
*Since most people who have AI’s are not on this call, will postpone going
through the list. Only address dd’s Ais.

*Status of dd’s Ais
A-20020731 Questionnaire will be finished by Monday 26
A-20020814 Done.  Sent text to editor, claifying the wording of checkpoints
for GL 14 and 15
A-20020614 Not yet started to develop a proposal for forming a testing
A-20020614 Waiting for results of questionnaire for terms for testable

[dd leave call]

5, Spec Guidelines  [5]

*No comments regarding changed needed for SpecGL release on 26 August.

*LH had a few specific issues to discuss

*Status section contains a list of the kind of attention and feedback we are
soliciting.  LH- is this a good summary of what we want?  All agreed it was.

*There are still some issues regarding atomicity, levels-modules, etc.
LH -What issues do we want to call attention to?  In status section, we
could reference the issues list, including specific issue numbers or just
provide the link to the issues list.  KD suggests that it’s better to link
to the specific issues.  LH will update the status section by 23 August.

*Goodness criteria for dimensions.  DM suggests the document address the
goodness criteria and that the overall number of dimensions can cause a
breakdown in interoperability. LH indicated that the document hints at this,
but it probably is good to make it an issue.  DM including a formula such as
numbers of dimensions or variability score, could stir up a reaction.  LH
will add this to the issues list and also flag it in the status section.

*CK10.5 - the proposed new text removes the negative disclaimer.  The new
text was DM’s assignment and implemented by LH.  It resulted in a new
checkpoint, CK10.5 and adjustments to related ckpoints (e.g., 3.1).  Is the
new text acceptable?  No comments.   DM pointed out that this is the only
place in the document that uses the date of the specification as a dividing
line.  The objective is to allow legacy documents to meet the spirit of the
GL and not be penalized for not explicitly calling out that there are no
levels, or profiles or using the terminology of the SpecGL.  DH asked why we
do this since it is unlikely that older specs would be evaluated (rated)
against the GL.  LH - it was decided (last telcon) to phrase things so that
legacy documents that have observed good practices in the spirit of the GL
could get a good score.  Should this be a new issue? DH - make it a priority
so that it is addressed soon.  DM - when this draft is published, other WG’s
could start to use the terminology so that their document progress in
parallel with the QA documents. The objective is to get some convergence to
occur prior to the final publication of the SpecGL.  LH - The Intro document
will eventually be amended to describe the mandatory-ness of these
documents. Meanwhile, in the status section, we can highlight what DM said -
that is, we want people to start looking at concepts and terms now and start
to use them; migrating towards them now.  LH will include something in the
status section regarding the mandatory nature of this document and a
suggestion to start using it now. DH asked if we should do this at all -
that is, pay attention to legacy documents.  LH will put this on the issues

* As a result of 10.5, LH amended 3.1: deleted last sentence and replaced.
What does this mean - do they pass it or not.  DM suggested adding more
verbiage, like an example that says that for legacy document to get a
passing score, it should be clear to a reader of the document that there are
no profiles, if its isn’t clear that the legacy document would fail the
checkpoint. LH asked if anyone had a better idea.  No, then, rather leave it
vague now or say explicitly that the checkpont is NA and not fail.   It was
decided to leave it as is (i.e., vague for now), even though it is ambiguous
as to how to do the score sheet.

*GL8- discretionary.  Do we want/need a new checkpoint?  Should there be a
new checkpoint requiring that interoperability effects of dependencies be
documented - i.e., requiring explicit documentation of interoperability
impacts.  No resolution at this time.  Still an open issue.

6 Next meetings/projects

* 3 teleconf scheduled between now and F2F.  (4 Sept, 18 Sept, and 2 Oct)
LH - with the publication of SpecGL, we have met a major milestone.  Once
its published we can expect to get comments and that will help to define our
program going forward.  If we don’t get a lot of comments, we have more
flexibility on moving forward and can discuss this during the next telcon.
The F2F will focus on the publication of all document parts for late

*The focus of the next telecon will be on Issues list and AI lists. If
Kirill publishes the draft TestGL before the end of August, the telcon will
be dedicated to looking at the draft.  As for the Spec Examples and
Techniques document, KD wants to create a new version prior to a discussion.
He will probably have a draft by late September and it can be discussed
during the 4 October telcon.

*Matrix Reviews.  LH - Although the matrix is populated, there still needs
to be dates added indicating when we want people to do reviews over the
remainder of year.  Want to have some Spec GL reviews with new draft and
also after Oct with publication.  There is a blank column for people to do
techniques assessment of a document.  Also, want to divide people up into
groups of three.  As soon as a cell has three people, it is closed.  At the
next telcon,

7. Issues list items
Postponed, too late to start now.

Next telecon 4 Sept.

Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 20:32:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC