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

Re: Cc/pp S&V conformance section

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:25:15 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030728135848.01e142f0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Luu Tran <Luu.Tran@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, "'W3C DIWG'" <w3c-di-wg@w3.org>

Hi Luu

This is better, especially the beginning of 5.3 CC/PP Consumer 
Conformance.  However, I'm still having trouble with the clarity of 
non-validating consumers.

1.  The 2 categories are not written in the same style - they should both 
start the same (e.g., A consumer is a... or The behavior of....).
2.  As written, it is possible for a non-validating consumer to reject all 
non-conformant CC/PP documents, since the behaviour is not specified - thus 
it would be a validating consumer.
(behaviour is not the US spelling - behavior)
3. Do you really need #2, since a validating consumer rejects 
non-conformant documents, then anything else is non-validating.
4.  If #2 is the inverse of #1 then I think that what you had before was 
clearer - basically, a consumer is non-validating if it accepts any 
non-conformant CC/PP document.
5. Suggestion for #2:  A consumer is a CC/PP non-validation conformant 
consumer if it accepts any non-conformant CC/PP document.

Hope this is helpful. regards
Lynne







At 08:33 PM 7/24/2003, Luu Tran wrote:
>Hi Lynne,
>
>Thank you for your comments [1] on the CC/PP S&V TR.  The DIWG has 
>prepared an updated draft [2] which we believe addresses your points:
>
>>1. What is meant by 'extracts appropriate information'.  Since 
>>'appropriate' is vague and subjective, can this be made more specific?
>
>Unfortunately, what information a producer extracts is very application 
>specific.  The best we could do is "extracts CC/PP information".
>
>>2. It may be clearer to be more explicit regarding a consumer's support 
>>(or non support) for Appendix B.  If I understand correctly, support for 
>>the RDF Schema is mandatory for validating consumers.
>
>What we mean is that consumers need not be schema-aware processors in the 
>sense that they can be configured with the schema format given.  The 
>information contained within the schema must be understood by the 
>consumer, but the format used to configure the consumer can be application 
>specific.
>
>>3. Editorial:  Change 'all' to 'any' in non-validating: A consumer is a 
>>CC/PP conformant non-validating consumer when it does not reject all 
>>non-conformant CC/PP documents.
>
>We've changed the definition to avoid both terms since we weren't happy 
>with either.
>
>>4. Comments on 5.5.2 Well-formed.
>>Add to the list of information to be included in a claim, the name 
>>(identify) of the implementation to which the claim is being made. Also, 
>>a version, date, or other identifier should be included to uniquely 
>>identify the implementation.
>
>We've added this.
>
>Please let us know if the new draft looks ok.
>
>Thanks,
>Luu
>
>[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-di-wg/2003Jul/0103.html
>[2]http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030723/
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 14:25:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT