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

Plan/proposal for DoV group -- Monday

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 13:05:54 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030419114344.028bfec0@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Please read and think before Monday (and send email comments, esp. if you 
won't be on telecon!)...

The DoV group: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1

Here is a plan/framework for addressing these issues.  There are two 
sections in this message:  first, an aggregated PROPOSAL for changes to 
SpecGL that will or might address all the issues; second, an issue-by-issue 
discussion of how the proposal does or doesn't address the issue.

I would like to take this approach:

1.) Endorse or reject the overall idea of the Concepts chapter as a place 
to put detailed and enhanced discussion on concepts that have confused 
reviewers in Last Call SpecGL;

2.) Look at how each issue's resolution is addressed, and fine tune the 
details if needed.

It would expedite this topic if you would identify those things you don't 
like, and why.  If you're not going to be present Monday, and if you care 
about this topic, please send email comments.

====================
THE PROPOSAL
====================

Add a new Chapter 2, "Concepts", which might look like this:

2. Concepts
2.1 Two kinds of guidelines
-----
[Restore lost bits from end of 1.7 in 20021108 version,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20021108/ ,
which said...]

"The guidelines are of two general types:

     * those that deal solely with the document features and conventions of 
the specification — GL1 and GL10 - GL14;
     * those that, in addition to documentation aspects, deal with how 
specifications should establish and define the conformance policy for the 
specification's technology, including ways in which the technology may be 
subdivided for conformance purposes — GL2 - GL9."

2.2 Dimensions of variability (DoV)
-----
[Move current 1.8 to here,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/#variability]

2.3 Specification category and class of product
-----
[To be discussed -- Per 20030418 telecon, it may be that we want to put the 
fully fleshed-out and improved discussion of SP and CoP in here, in their 
own subsections, with anchors on the two lists.  I think it is a good idea, 
as there were several comments about confusion about these concepts.]

2.4 Profiles, Modules, Levels
-----
[To be discussed (later, when we resume the prof/mod/lev issue?) -- It may 
be that we want to put a full discussion of profiles, modules, levels in 
here, with anchors on the two lists.  I think it is a good idea, as there 
were several comments about confusion about these concepts, "having trouble 
seeing a sharp distinction".  I don't think a clear picture of the concepts 
can necessarily be developed with very terse text, for reasons that I'll 
explain later.  We could take the time and space to do it here, perhaps 
recovering some discussion and verbiage that was in earlier drafts, but 
that has been dropped.]

2.X (Sections for other DoV?  Or are they simple enough?)
-----
[ To be discussed --

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x77 ,
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/DIWGcomments.html#SG-1

seem to suggest that GL2, and 4/5/6 are the ones that need attention.  So 
maybe no additional 2.x sections are needed?]

2.Y Addressing relationships among DoV used
-----
[There is confusion about "address the interrelationships...":
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x21
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x99

Here would be an opportunity to discuss the concept in general, perhaps 
with a generalized or generic version of:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0121.html .
This discussion could then be back-linked from each of the relevant CP, 
which would then only add its own specialization to the discussion.]

GL2 Identify what needs to conform and how.
-----
[To be discussed -- the idea to move the detailed verbiage into "Concepts" 
(see above), and have abbreviated discussion here, heavy on links and 
references.]

GL4/5/6 Profiles/modules/levels
[To be discussed -- the idea to move the detailed verbiage sections into 
"Concepts" (see above), and have abbreviated discussion in the GLs' 
verbiage, heavy on links and references.]

GL2-9
-----
[Add a caveat back in.  For each DoV, we used to have a statement like the 
last paragraph of the verbiage at GL3 profiles:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#b2b3b3d239 ]

CP2.4, 4.3, 5.2, 6.1, 7.3, 8.5, 9.7
-----
[The "DoV relationship" CPs.  Their discussion/rationale would back-link to 
2.Y, and maybe add some specialized discussion.]

====================
ADDRESSING THE ISSUES
====================

21
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x21

This is solved by 2.Y above (and CP2.4, 4.3, 5.2, 6.1, 7.3, 8.5, 9.7).

66
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x66
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0118.html

This is not solved by the PROPOSAL (yet), but the above email proposal has 
gotten no negative comments and apparently stands.  To be discussed -- its 
explanation could be put somewhere in new Ch.2 (e.g., in prof/mod/lev, if 
such a subsection is approved).

75.3
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x75

The PROPOSAL does not address consolidating the DoV guidelines, 
GL2-9.  IMO, the only real possibility here, within reach for SpecGL 1.0, 
is the prof/mod/lev topic:  can those concepts be consolidated? or if 
concepts are kept separate, at least can the 7 checkpoints (4+2+1) at least 
be put under a single GL?

Resolving that latter question must wait for the prof/mod/lev discussion 
(4/25?).  But on Monday we could endorse the idea (or NOT!) that that's the 
only potential opportunity for consolidation.

75.5
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x75

This would be resolved by the GL2-9 ("Add a caveat back in...") 
comment.  Note the use of "a" -- it doesn't have to be exactly the old one, 
if someone has better words.

84
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x84

Solved by the PROPOSAL, I think.  The DoV are given prominence in Chapter 
2, and would show up in the TOC.  Ch.2 would link to the individual DoV, 
and vice-versa.  The DoV GLs and the Document GLs are not segregated into 
separate chapters (which would be the ultimate restructuring).  But IMO 
that is not needed.

90
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x90

Solved by the PROPOSAL.  The DoV are given prominence in Chapter 2, and 
would show up in the TOC.  Ch.2 would link to the individual DoV, and 
vice-versa.

95
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x95

NOT SOLVED YET.  If we agree that Conformance Policy is a DoV, then we need 
some verbiage.  I guess in GL3 would work, or another subsection in 
Ch.2.  To be discussed, 3 questions -- is it a DoV?  verbiage to answer 
originators question? if so, where to put it?

77.SG-1
---
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x77
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/DIWGcomments.html#SG-1

Resolved by 2.3, 2.4, and 2.Y.
### end ###

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2003 15:04:07 GMT

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