W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

[Draft] Minutes from QA WG Teleconf 2003/03/31

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:41:06 -0800
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA2690206F49627@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Please review. Apologies for delay. Thanks
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 31-march-2003
Scribe: Kirill (with help from Lynne)

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C) 
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

  (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: [...to be filled in after telcon...] 
AI-YYYYMMDD-N   Who              What    DEADLINE 
AI-20030331-1   Peter/Patrick    Update estimates for the next TestGL draft                 20030407
AI-20030331-2   Patrick          Write in-scope/out of scope statement for SpecGL .         20030407 
AI-20030331-3   Mark             Assess the current level of SpecGL conformance.            20030414
AI-20030331-4   Mark             Prepare the list of TAs for SpecGL.                        ????????
AI-20030331-5   Lofton           Action item to start email thread to find a suitable slot 
                                 for additional teleconferences.[DONE]                      20030407                            

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0077.html 
Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0074.html 

Summary of disposition on SpecGL LC issues:

LC1 - substantive, reject as out of scope. Need to add wording restricting the scope of SpecGL
LC8 - Looks editorial and should request a clarification from the commenter.
LC9 - looks editorial.
LC11 - Editorial. Request clarification from the commenter.
LC14 - Substantive. Target SpecGL for AAA level of self conformance by RC. Produce a list of TAs. Reassess the current self conformance level.
LC16 - Chck8.4 and conformance requirements. Editorial.
LC18 - editorial
LC28 - editorial
LC39 - Chck8.4 and conformance requirements. Editorial.
LC55 - same as LC1


LH: Need to verify the estimates for the Test GL. Patrick could you talk with Peter?
LH. Next teleconf. Were going to switch to OpsGL, but not sure we are going to be done with SpecGL today. Is it Ok with DH if we are going to do SpecGL next Monday as well?
DH: Don't see any problem with this.
LH: June meeting - do we have any slot to discuss logistics? 
LH: CCPP entered Last Call. The draft is ready for us to review.
DH: Web Ontology group will be ready for QA review sometime soon.
LH: Is anyone interested in these? We should probably reassign review assignments. When it comes up we'll deal with it.
LH: Dom will lead agenda item 4, Last Call issues for SpecGl
DH: Sent proposal to the WG on how we should proceed with resolutions for LC issues. We should clearly mark up them as substantive and editorial. Then should assign volunteers to draft substantive/harder issues. Is everyone Ok with the procedure? 
Everyone: Ok.
DH: Not sure if people had time to go through the list where I indicated what issues are substantive and what are editorial.
DH: LC5 - editorial. Editors will work on it.
LH: Since it's a LC, even though it's an editorial, we should come up with a disposition. We should probably have to produce a formal response document. We should be covered if we can produce a response document together with a WG version.
DH: Absolutely.
DH: LC8 - requirements of full conformance. Not sure what is meant. The definition is fuzzy. Looks editorial and should request a clarification from the commenter.
LC9 - looks editorial.
LC11 - request for clarification. Editorial.
LC16,39 - Chck8.4 and conformance requirements. Editorial.
LC18 - editorial
LC28 - editorial
DH: Should we go through my proposals for substantive issues?
LR: Sounds good.
DH: LC1,55. Should we talk about security, accessibility. Suggested that these considerations are out of scope of QA Framework and SpecGL specifically. 
LR: Suggest to list them in the document but mention that they are out of scope.  
MS: Why not just not addressing them at all.
KG: I think these both are covered already by saying authors should avoid undefined functionality.
LH: I don't think we are covering it - that would be a stretch. But I think it is out of scope.
KD: I think it is out of scope of these guidelines.
PC, All seconded: We should also write a sentence narrowing the scope of the document.
DH: Could Patrick word the sentence? We should try to see who could address the rule to have security and accessibility in W3C specs.
LH: Should we enumerate things that are out of scope?
PC: I think that would lead us on that slippery slope. 
MS: I agree. We should just have a general sentence specifying what is out of scope, but not enumerating them.
Action Item: Patrick to write in-scope/out of scope statement. ETA - next Monday.
DH: Agreed on resolution for LC1 and 55.
DH: Next LC14. Degree of conformance of SpecGL itself. Reviewer claims we are not AAA, simply because we do not provide the list of test assertions. 2nd issue - whether we should be AAA compliant. 
PC: Would checkpoints list be a list of test assertions?
DH: May not be.
PC: Would be nice if we could tag TA within the document.
LR: I agree with it.
MS: It's not necessarily possible to markup all of the test assertions.
LR: I don't believe we can automatically generate TAs from the SpecGL.
KG: May be we should postpone resolution of this issue until we revisit the definition of a TA? We had slightly different opinions.
PC: I have a problem with interpreting assertions rather then marking them up.
MS: Volunteered to produce a TA list for the SpecGL.
DH: Agreed that we are going to produce such a list. Should we target AAA level of conformance? Should we first assess the level of conformance?
LH: Certainly would like to assess.
LR: Should we target AAA? How can we ask others to comply with AAA if we can't? 
LH: I think we agree that we should assess the level we are currently at. 
Action Item for MS to assess the current level of SpecGL conformance. 2 weeks.
Agreed to target AAA by CR.
LH: We have 3 teleconferences until the next milestone, which may not be enough. 
KD: Agreed.
LH: We can slip the schedule or add couple more teleconferences. Personal preference to add more teleconferences.
KG: I may not be able to make more teleconferences during next four weeks.
MS: I will have a problem to add more teleconferences to my schedule.
LH: Action item to start email thread to find a suitable slot for additional teleconferences.


Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 00:41:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:30 UTC