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

processing plan for SpecGL LC issues

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:26:00 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030412201544.00b20af8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Below is the continued processing of issues for SpecGL for Monday 14 April 
Telecon.

Topics:
1. What is Normative - this is continued from last Thursday.  I've 
summarized and continued the discussion.  (Issues: 36, 65, 106, 108 and [1])
2. Profile/Module/Level (Issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98)
3. Category/Class (Issues: 8, 11, 46, 48, 61, 73.3, 93, 94) and  [1]

I've attempted to summarize the issue and in some cases present 
alternatives.  Most of the issues result from not understanding what is 
meant by the CP.

regards
Lynne

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0073.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHAT IS NORMATIVE  (36, 65, 106, 108 and [1])

Summary from last week:
- The glossary and Section 4 Definitions are Informative (#36).
- Section 3.1 which identifies what in SpecGL is normative will be 
rewritten  improve wording and expand bullet list as needed.  Text 
identified by ‘conformance requirements’ will indicate Normative text, 
rather than using RFC keywords (#106 and #108).  Also make sure it’s clear, 
that Normative text can be sections, paragraphs, not just a sentence  thus 
consistent with our definition (#108).
- We will not label Sections as normative or normative.  CONFIRM: that we 
don't want to label Section 4 as Informative  it used to be labeled 
(non-normative).

-THINK about this (it is a prelude to the item below it) (#108)
Is Section 1 Normative? I think it is.  This information is needed in order 
to understand and use the SpecGL.  Also, to be consistent, IMO, most specs 
do consider this type of information normative. Note, that there may be 
informative information embedded into the section, e.g., examples.

New Stuff:  (#65, #108)
Definitions for normative and informative in Section 4.  These are more 
narrowly focused than the definitions used in the UAAG glossary.  As per 
[1], they contain the notion ‘directly connected’ to conformance  e.g., 
test assertion or conformance requirement.  Agree?  Or should normative be 
broader?   Do we want to change the definition?  Accept UAAG definition or 
Volunteer to draft?

The Checkpoint Priorities:  Are these Normative?  (#106)  (May be moot, 
depending on resolution of definition of normative)


CP8.4 CONSISTENT HANDLING OF DISCRETIONARY CHOICES (#16, 39)
Comments regarding “document the identified policies” to be clarified and 
if possible made simpler.  This CP has a history of being rewritten.  It 
seems to be a difficult concept to describe clearly.
Alternatives:
1. try again and rewrite (Volunteer?)
2. delete the checkpoint
3. leave as is.


PROFILE/MODULE/LEVEL: (30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98)
There is not a clear distinction between profile/module/level  these are 
all ways to define and label a set of technical requirements.  Can 
guidelines 4, 5 and 6 be combined? (#30).  Suggest using diagrams for 
examples. (#51)

Profiles:
- Definition of Profiles unclear, needs simplification (#49)
- CP4.1 example.  Ambiguous or error?  Difficult to understand. (#50).  I 
also don’t understand the note.
Alternatives:  1. Clarify example (and Note).  2. Delete example (and 
Note). 3. Replace with explanation rather than example. Move example to ExTech
- CP 4.4 What is the definition of ‘derived profile’ (#41).

Modules
Unlike G4, which notes that profiles may be a point of extension, G5 does 
not consider modules a point of extension.  In the web services world, 
modules are a point of extension and have rules for defining new 
modules.  (#97).  IMO, there is a misunderstanding. In our definition, 
profiles or modules are ways to subset or divide the technology, not add 
new technology, except through the extension mechanisms defined in the Spec 
(which would need to be included in the profile/module)
Alternatives: 1. Misunderstanding, do nothing. 2. Ensure consistent with 
web services world and modify definition accordingly.

Levels
Suggest adding additional checkpoints, including one to establish that 
levels create a hierarchy of conformance, that the more advanced levels 
include the earlier levels (thus establishing that there is a minimum 
level). (#98)


GL 2: CATEGORY/CLASS (#8, 11, 46, 48, 61, 73.3, 93, 94, [1])
(#8  editorial, huh??)

Confusion as to difference between ‘class of product’ and ‘category’ (#11, 
93).  Categories of objects” is still a poorly defined term. Suggest rename 
to: ‘category of specifications’ [1].  Confusing use of consumer and 
producer  used to distinguish classes or products and is also in the list. 
Suggest dividing the list into processor, consumer, or content; making the 
terminology in this area unique, so there is no ambiguity. (#46)

Checkpoints based on classes of products and categories are awkward because 
the use of the enumerated list is required, but only if applicable. Thus 
the use of the list is completely optional. (#94).

If category and CoP are to be called out normatively, then they should have 
status in the ToC (e.g., have ids and be targets for hyperlinks, 
subheadings to identify them visually) (#93).  Do we add this to CP13.4 
(navigation)?

Additions to the lists:
-Add to the list of categories: guideline
-Add to the list of classes of products: technical reports [1], document 
and resources, or make document and resources examples of the ‘content’ 
class. (#61)

CP2.3, first occurrence of ‘categories of objects’  not obvious to the 
reader what this is. Link to the definition and use this term, e.g., Most 
specifications can be classified into one of the following categories of 
object…”(#48). Enumerate all CoP is an unreasonable requirement (#73.3)
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2003 20:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT