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

DRAFT Minutes - QA Working Group Teleconference 06/20/02

From: Jack Morrison <Jack.Morrison@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200206202043.g5KKh2428124@josie.East.Sun.COM>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

DRAFT Minutes
QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 20-June-2002
Scribe: Jack Morrison


(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)

Regrets: ]
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: 
ACTION:  A-2002-06-20-1: KG to reword Section 1.2 Priorties in both
the Testing Guidelines draft and the Operational Guidelines to not include  
ACTION:  A-2002-06-20-2: LH to reword the same section in the 
Specifications Guideline

Previous Telcon Minutes: 

Face-2-Face Meeting Minutes:


 The Fall F2F will probably be in Toyko on October 7-9. LH will ask at the 
next meeting who believes they will be able to attend.
 The teleconference next week will be at the new time, 10:00EST. The 
objective will be to work on some Specification Guideline issues.
 This special meeting was called to review the Test Guidelines draft. A new 
version (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/06/qaframe-test-0620.html) was posted 
this morning with additional comments and an explanation of each guideline 
& checkpoint. However, the numbering for the Guidelines and Checkpoints in 
that version is incorrect. These minutes use the numbers as published, but 
also indicate what the number should be after the numbering correction is 
made in the form: current(should_be), ie. 1.10(2.1). 

Section 1.2 
 Discussion about this section containing Must/Shall/May as part of the 
definition. AI(1) that KG would reword this and the section in the 
Operational Guidelines so they were consistent. AI(2) to LH to do the same 
for the Specification Guidelines.
Section 2.0
 Some how what had been Guideline 2 in the previous version got left out, 
although the checkpoints are still there. Checkpoints 1.10-1.13 should 
actually be under "Guideline 2 Define areas for testing" as checkpoints 
 Guideline 1 (1)
 Disccussed that test areas as defined here may not map to specific areas 
in a specification, but that there is a need for traceability. KG indicated 
that the traceability was provided by mapping the test assertions in a 
later checkpoint.
 Checkpoint 1.1(1.1)
  Discussed what specifications this checkpoint was meant to include. 
Agreed that it meant those being tested AND those that were referenced by 
the testing, and that when you tested you assumed the dependencies worked 
correctly. Also discussed that Issue13 (testing multiple specifications) 
needed to be resolved, but that either way it should not affect this 
checkpoint. Some clarification to be added, including why the list was 
 Checkpoint 1.2(1.2)
  Needs to be clarified to indicate it is related to only the target 
specification (or specs based on issue 13).
 Checkpoint 1.3(1.3)
  Discussed if, based on the wording, we were creating assestions that 
might not be used to test conformance. Agreed that conformance levels were 
possible but that this section needed to be clarified to indicate how to 
correctly group the test assertions.
 Checkpoint 1.4(1.4)
 Checkpoint 1.5(1.6)
  Okay, but the term "vague" needs to be changed to something a little 
clearer, like intentionally undefined.
 Checkpoint 1.6(1.5)
  Okay, but agreed that it should be before the previous checkpoint.
 Checkpoint 1.7(1.7)
  Okay, but also discussed that there are a number of terms that need to go 
into the Glossary for this to all be clear.
 Checkpoint 1.8(1.8)
 Checkpoint 1.9(1.9)
(Guideline 2 "Define areas for testing" should start here)

 Checkpoint 1.10(2.1)
  Needs examples and to be disccsued as it relates to levels, modules and 
 Checkpoint 1.11(?)
  Needs to be moved to someplace under the guideline on test development, 
and should provide examples of different criteria you could use to 
prioritize the tests.
 Checkpoint 1.12(2.2)
  Needs examples and some clarification.
 Checkpoint 1.13(2.3)
Guideline 2 (3)
 This guideline is meant to be a high level approach on how to build tests, 
and needs to be updated to make this clear.
 Checkpoint 2.1 (3.1)
  Discussed if this meant choose from a list or define how. Agreed it 
should be define how.
 Checkpoint 2.2 (3.2)
  Both 2.1 and 2.2 need to be reworded, as neither is verifiable or 

 Meeting adjourned at 3:35PM
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 16:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:27 UTC