Re: Editorial thoughts on qaframe-spec

Le lun 14/10/2002 à 18:51, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a écrit :
> As now I have to work on the DOV GL (currently GL 3,4 and 7), I have
> thought of a new way to understanding these GL and would like to get
> feedback on this, especially from Lynne and Lofton.
> [...]
> I'll try to see if I can find a good way to match this in a new
> structure for GL 3, 4 and 7, but any comment in the meanwhile is
> welcomed :)

Here is how I see we could get out of our GL mixes:
* for each subsetting DOV (module, profile, level) *defined in the
spec*, have a set of CP requiring
-> documentation of the architectural design behind it
-> inclusion or normative reference to conformance rules per product
class
-> additional constraints per product class
-> cross DOV relationships

[This is more or less what's already in the GL 3,4 and 7 but do not rely
on equivalence spec<->techno.]

* a generic GL on guidance for subsetting a spec:
-> indicate if there are constraints on re-using parts of a spec; if
there is so, provide a conformance section of derived spec (or more
generally, make sure you consider specs as one of the product class
addressed by your spec) and try to use a DOV approach for that
-> more? if not, I need to find where to insert the CP into an existing
GL probably

* a generic GL on importing a spec (by normative ref):
-> respect existing rules
-> document implied conformance per class of product
-> specify any additional constraints 

I haven't yet decided if GL 3,4 and 7 should be merged in this new
design, or if we should keep them separate for sake of clarity. If the
latter, I would like to have them adjacent in the document.

It's probably a good idea to discuss this new model and its related
questions at our teleconf Wednesday.

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/INRIA
mailto:dom@w3.org