W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: DRAFT minutes of 20040209 QAWG telecon

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:31:59 +0200
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Message-Id: <CB39CFD7-5BFF-11D8-ABE7-000393556882@ontologicon.com>

One small clarification, prefixed by [dd].

Hope this clarifies a bit.

Best

/Dimitris

On Tuesday, Feb 10, 2004, at 19:15 Europe/Athens, Lofton Henderson 
wrote:

>
>
> QA Working Group Teleconference
> Monday, 09-February-2004
> --
> Scribe: Lofton Henderson
>
> Attendees:
> (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
> (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
> (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
> (DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
> (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
> (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
> (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
>
> Regrets:
> (MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
> (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
> (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
>
> Absent:
> (VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)
>
> Guest:
> David Marston (for a few minutes)
>
> Summary of New Action Items:
> no new action items.
>
> Agenda:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Feb/0027.html
>
> Previous Telcon Minutes:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Feb/0026.html
>
> Minutes:
> -----
>
> Routine business:
>
> -- Next telecon (scheduled for 16-feb) is about Test Materials for our 
> Guidelines
> documents.  LH will recirculate some proposals by email, for 
> discussion.  Because
> of holiday in U.S., it looks like 4 regulars won't attend.  So we'll 
> try
> to switch it to Wednesday (18-feb).
>
> -- First draft f2f agenda is posted (agenda ref [2])
>
> -- No discussion of WWW2004 this time... put it on next agenda.
>
> DD presenting DOM Test Methodology.  Agenda reference,
>
> [1] http://www.ontologicon.com/NIST/3_3.htm
>
> DD: Thanks to NIST for sponsoring the work.
>
> LH: Note that this is early deliverable on list on QAWG home page
> (currently, 2nd bulletted deliverable).  Report will be linked from
> there.
>
> DD:  Referring to reference [1], going through and summarizing 
> (summary not
> minuted -- see reference [1]).
>
> DD: Relationship to QAWG work:  DOM TS only partially covers QAWG test 
> guidelines,
> because TestGL came (much) later.  Ops and Spec came later as well and 
> so those
> were not fully implemented.
>
> DD:  Motivation for automation -- spend less time writing TCs.  
> Minimize time
> to produce TS.  (See more at [1]).
>
> DD:  History:  2001 NIST released initial DOM (Level 1) TS which 
> tested only JS
> binding only.  200+ working tests.
>
> DD: Issues:  Tests for each language binding?  Solution:  Abstract TS 
> ML that
> could be used to generate each binding's tests.  Took 6 months.  
> Design choice:
> Pseudo language?  No, mimic DOM language for TS ML.  Reasons:  to not 
> write
> an abstract language for an abstract language.
>
> Questions/discussion about DOMTS ML versus generic TCDL:
>
> AT:  TC markup specific to DOM.  Couldn't use a generic TCDL?
> DD:  Could have done it in theory, but that would be using markup
> to describe IDL.  In DOM TS work, recognized two kinds of specs
> -- ones like DOM can use automation like DOMTS.  I'm uncertain
> whether XMLspec can be used for each specification in W3C.
> The other kind of spec lends itself with more difficulty to automated
> processes (where you express functionality in prose, for example
> about user interaction).
>
> AT:  Is there any applicability for a generic TCDL?
> DD:  I don't think we should put energy into a generic TCDL -- not 
> worth
> the payoff. The simple metadata needs can be achieved other ways like 
> CVS.
> LH:  His DOMTS ML is two things:  automatically derivable pseudo-code 
> for
> the test itself; plus TCDL-like metadata (that may involve some manual
> intervention).
>
> Questions/discussion about automation and many-to-one (TC-to-interface)
> generation:
>
> DD:  Many-to-one TC to TA possible.  Specifically, TC can point to TA
> (in spec), spec does not point. on level above TC, aggregation can 
> lead to
> table (or similar) resolving pointers from TC to TA (and, reversely, 
> can
> give picture of what TA get tested by what TC).

[dd] Should be rephrased to

Many-to-one TC to TA possible. Specifically, TC can point to TA (in the 
specification), TA in the specification does not point to TC. On the 
level above TC, aggregation can generate a table (or similar) resolving 
pointers from TC to TA (and, reversely, it can give a picture of which 
TA gets tested by what TC).



>
> AT/DD/LH discussion:  Automatically derived?  No problem tracing 
> multiple
> tests to 1 interface; currently can't *auto-generate* multiple tests 
> from
> single interface.
>
> DD:  Multiple bindings generatable from the TC ML.
>
> DD:  Issues/lessons relevant for QAWG
>
> -- DOM WG couldn't implement all GLs that we had at the time, Circa
> 2002.  There was too much GL stuff, too raw (early maturity levels),
> and too late relative to DOMTS development timeline.
>
> -- DOM WG used granular grammar, XMLspec, which enabled the automation.
> XHTML-plus wouldn't cut it.  XMLspec allowed use of same vocabulary in
> DOMTS ML as in DOM spec.
>
> -- Lesson:  DOM TS dev't was slowed because of 
> member/corporate/licensing
> problems.  Hassles w/ members' legal/licensing.  IMPT!  It's wise to 
> write
> clear internal process in WG before you start an effort like DOMTS, 
> incl.
> especially resolving licensing questions in advance
>
> LH: will someone in DOM WG answer our Test questionnaire?  (DD -- not
> me.  DH -- probably team/staff.)
>
> [Note to minuter.  For completion of your minutes, including
> where and how to circulate, please see instructions at:
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2001/12/07-QA-logistics#telcon-minute.
> Delete this note before circulation.]
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 14:34:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT