QA Working Group Teleconference Wednesday, 14-August-2002, 10:00am EDT. -- Scribe: Kirill Gavrylyuk Attendees: (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) (DM) David Marston (IBM) Regrets: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) Absent: (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun Microsystems) Summary of New Action Items: - AI-20020814-1 KD: Gather the patent information and publish a patent Disclosure page. - AI-20020814-2 LH: Next Monday, 19th to publish the new WG draft. - AI-20020814-3 DD(not yet coordinated with DD): Clarify the wording for the checkpoints of the Gd 14 and 15 , provide definition of the test assertion and mark-up grammar. - AI-20020814-4 All: Verify the draft proposed status section for the Spec Guidelines. LH to send email to ask the WG by 8/16 (done) - AI-20020814-5 LR: to propose the definition for the Use Case and User Scenario. (done) - AI-20020814-6 LH: Split the Ck 1.3 into 2.Leave one as "Include Examples" and add another "Have an example for each test assertion" where mapping may not be 1:1. - AI-20020814-7 DM: Circulate the proposal to reword the checkpoints that require a spec to mention explicitly if the dimensions of variability are not used. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0085.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0060.html Minutes: LH: Asked WG members to join the teleconference on time. LH: Moving to Agenda. Our target is to publish spec GL on Monday Aug 26.[Action Item] Next Monday, 19th LH to publish the new WG draft. LH: The new pubrules require the info on patent disclosure. Everyone who has not sent it before, has to send KD a statement regarding the patent disclosure. KD: I will first look at what I already have from the Call for Review/Call for Participation. If I do not find the information, I will contact people individually. I will set up the page. I do not anticipate any, but if problems occur then we'll have to create a Patent Group. LH: Let's move on. Going through the checkpoints that had a praticular request. The only requests were made by LH. LH: Gd 14, Gd15. The bar is rather high - pri 1. Should all the 5 checkpoints be pri1? MS: Re the Ck 14.1 about endorsed grammar. Why does it say "If applicable"? One can not endorse it. KG: To add: we do not give any definition of the endorsed grammar. LH: Agree. DOes anybody agree to remove "If Applicable" Peter: [Re: no definition of endorsed grammars] We do talk about the endorsed grammars. But in a pretty vague manner. LH: Do we change the pri to Pri2 or do we keep it Pri1? LR and KG proposed to change to Pri2. LH: Anyone objects? Agreed to change it. LH: Let's look first at 15.1 and 15.2? Discussed 15.1, Agreed to clarify and to change to "Include test assertions into specification", leaving it at the Pri1. And 15.2 will be a Pri2 and say "Do it using the granular grammar, e.g. using mark-up to mark the test assertions inline" LH: Ck 14.2. Anyone object to drop it for the 14.2 to Pri2? No objections. Changed to Pri2. LH: Ck 14.3. Seems like it should be lowered to Pri2 because we lowered all the rest of the Gd 14. The Gd requires a lot of work, but we shouldn't try to accoplish it before the publication. Dimitris is the author of Gd 14 and Gd 15 and he is not available right now. KD: We may put an action item "Clarify the wording for the checkpoints of the Gd 14 and 15 , provide definition of the test assertion and mark up". Need to contact Dimitris. LH: Done with Gd 14 and 15. There are many checkpoints regarding the entries in the table of contents. And the priorities are inconsistent. Should they be of the same priorities? I suggest to leave 10.3 to Pri1 and lower all the rest to Pri2. KG: Second this. LH: No one objects. Lowered. LH: Ck 9.1 and 9.3 are relative but have different pri. Suggest to raise the pri of 9.1 to 1. Objections? Agreed. LH: Ck 8.1 have pri2, but I think it ought to be pri1. Objections? Agreed. LH: Ck 5.1. The key is "universal", this is asking for the cross spec summary of all the requirements. Are there any issues with pri 1? Agreed to leave it as is. LH: Asked people to verify the draft proposed status section. One of the decisions we made was that in the status section we flag what kind of feedback we wanted and we also flag specific issues. Right now I don't have strong idea of what specific issues do we have. KG: How about addind a disclaimer that we may have not defined all the terms used in this document. KG: I had several issues when reviewing the XML Protocol SOAP1.2 specification. Will send them later. LH: [Action item] Will send an email and ask to post all the suggested issues to be added to the status by Friday 8/16. LH: Ck 1.2 and 1.3. Issue 72. There are 2 issues: one is the word "normative". AT: Propose to add that unless otherwise specified, the Use Cases are informative. All agreed. LH: Propose to remove the first sentence in the note of the 1.2. LR: I'll propose the definition for the Use Case and User Scenario. [Action item] DM: propose to split the Ck 1.3 into 2. Leave one as "Include Examples" and add another "Have an example for each test assertion" where mapping may not be 1:1. LH: I'll take an action item to do that. [Action item] LH: Gd 4. There was an issues raised by Al Gilman regarding atomicity of levels. [LH and DM discussed ] Resolution: Leave it as a recommendation by clean-up the language. Add atomicity to the bullent list of Ck 4.3 DM: The requirement on the conformance clause is that it is be searchable from the TOC. We could add verbiage to 10.3, for any dimension of variability that you don't use, state it in the Conformance clause. KG: Objected against the sentences that require explicitly stating that Dimension of variability is unsupported. The reason is, that with revisions of the Guidelines document, new dimensions of variability may come up. And all the specs published to-date will be automatically non-conformant to the Spec Guidelines. DM: Proposed to make all such requirements pri2. DM will circulate a proposal on the www-qa-wg. Adjourned at 11:30am EDT.