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

SpecGL Use Cases

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 20 Jun 2003 18:23:02 +0200
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1056126183.7299.261.camel@stratustier>
Here is what Lynne and I (but mostly Lynne) have been producing as use
cases for specGL. Our current intent is to insert the short version
(bulleted list) at the end of the introduction, while having the
detailed list as an appendix to the document.

Comments and suggestions are welcome (and unless we hear otherwise,
we'll proceed with this for the next version of the document).

Le mer 18/06/2003 ŗ 14:12, Lynne Rosenthal a ťcrit :
> Use Cases for SpecGL
> ∑       A Working Group is developing a new specification or a new edition 
> of a specification.  The WG gets familiar with the principles in the 
> Specification Guidelines as early as possible, since it can influence what 
> goes into the specification as well as the organization, structure, and 
> presentation of content in the specification.
> 
> ∑       a Working Group is concerned by interoperability issues discovered 
> during the implementations phase (e.g. during the Candidate 
> Recommendation), and tries to address them by making the conformance 
> requirements more constraining. It uses the Specification Guidelines to 
> identify the common interoperability issues explained in the document
> 
> ∑       a Working Group develops a specification that it wants to move to 
> Candidate Recommendation in the near future and knows that it will develop 
> a Test Suite during this phase; to ensure that the building of the Test 
> Suite will be as efficient and accurate as possible, it uses the 
> Specification Guidelines to have a clearer idea on how to make the 
> specification testable
> 
> ∑       a Working Group has committed in its charter to a level AA 
> conformance to the Specification Guidelines for its specifications (as 
> required for AA conformance to the Operational Guidelines, for instance) ; 
> it uses the Specification Guidelines to assess the conformance of its 
> specifications at different stages of the specification life
> ∑       a Working Group asks others to review their specification.  The 
> Working Group indicates its claim of conformance to the Specification 
> Guidelinhes, i.e., the degree of conformance met. The reviewers use the 
> Specificationh Guidelines as part of their evaluation criteria and ensures 
> that the appropriate checkpoints in the Specification Guidelines are 
> satisfied.
> 
> Use Case 1: Working Group is writing a new specification or new edition
> Actors: WG, Specification authors/editors, QA WG
> a)      WG develops a requirements document and/or use cases supporting the 
> developing of a new Specification
> b)      Prior to writing the specification, the WG and the specification 
> authors review the SpecGL to help in planning the content, structure and 
> presentation style of the specification.
> c)      WG identifies the applicable SpecGL guidelines and checkpoints and 
> strive to satisfy the conformance requirements of the applicable SpecGL 
> checkpoint.
> d)      WG discusses and determines its conformance policy  specifically, 
> what goes into the conformance clause, whether to subset the technology 
> (e.g., define profiles, modules), the need for and effect of optional 
> features, discretionary choices, extensions, etc.
> e)      Authors take action (e.g., write text, structure document) to meet 
> at least all Priority 1 checkpoints.
> f)      Authors use normative language to identify requirements and labels 
> normative and informative text.
> g)      Authors use markup to indicate testable assertions and enable test 
> traceability.
> h)      Authors write the specification.
> i)      WG asks QA WG to review specification and assist in ensuring that 
> the specification is testable and the conformance consequences of any 
> dimensions of variability on interoperability are assessed.
> 
> 
> Use Case 2: Working Group wants more stringent conformance requirements
> Actors: WG, Specification authors/editors
> a)      WG reviews the Specification Guidelines paying particular attention 
> to Section 2 Concepts and the checkpoints that deal with Dimensions of 
> Variability (GLx), specifying the conformance policy and conditions for 
> claiming conformance (old GL10/3), (old GL11/12).
> b)      WG documents the ways in which the specification allows 
> variation  i.e., the dimensions of variability (DOV).
> c)      WG justifies the usage of each DoV and describes how it affects 
> conformance, what conformance claims can be made, and its affect on 
> interoperability
> d)      WG clearly indicates conformance requirements by using conformance 
> key words (RFC 2119) or other methods that map to these key words
> e)      WG develops an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) to enable 
> implementations to indicate which capabilities and options have been 
> implemented.
> 
> 
> Use Case 3: Working Group wants to facilitate the building of a test suite
> Actors: WG, Specification author/editors, Test developers
> a)      WG reviews the Specification Guidelines.  All guidelines of SpecGL 
> apply, but particular attention should be given to the guidelines on the 
> conformance clause (old GL10/3), clearly idenbtifying conformance 
> requirements (old GL13) and Test Assertions (old GL14).
> b)      WG authors use markup to tag every conformance requirement and the 
> applicability of these requirements to the declared classes of products.
> c)      WG authors use markup to indicate all DoV
> d)      WG writes a conformance clause
> e)      Test developers develop test assertions for every conformance 
> requirement.
> f)      WG authors and Test developers review the test assertions for 
> completeness and correctness
> g)      WG authors either include the test assertions in their 
> specification or link to them from the specification.
> h)      WG authors ensure that there is traceability between the 
> specification and the test assertion.
> 
> Use Case 4: Working Group commits to AA comformance of SpecGL
> Actors: WG
> a)      WG implements every P1 and P2 checkpoint by using the techniques in 
> the SpecGL ExTech document or by using their own technique
> b)      WG uses the SpecGL ICS (checklist) to record the checkpoints that 
> are satisfied.
> c)      WG makes a claim of AA conformance in the format specified in 
> Section 3.4
> 
> 
> Use Case 5:  WG requests review of their specification
> Actors: Reviewers, either WG members and/or non-WG members
> a)      Reviewers read Specification Guidelines with ExTech to gain an 
> understanding of each checkpoint and how to satisfy that checkpoint.
> b)      Reviewers identify the set of checkpoints that need to be applied 
> for the review.
> c)      Reviewers systematically go through the Specification Guidelines 
> ICS and indicate which checkpoints are satisfied.

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

Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 12:23:04 GMT

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