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

bibliography for Monday telecon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:22:28 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org


Monday's topic will be:  first look at how to handle comments from Jeremy 
Carroll and/or OWL.

There is a *lot* of material.  Therefore I am sending a bibliography 
now.  Please try to familiarize yourself with the material before Monday, 
if you haven't already read it thoroughly.   I will try to send an 
identification and summary of the issues that we need to address, before 
the weekend (hopefully).

[1] - [3] deal with procedural objections to how QA has progressed the QAF.
[4] are personal comments about QAF, from JC to QA, requesting formal response.
[5] are consensus WG comments from OWL to QA, requiring formal response.
[6] & [7] are additional references (uncertain about response requirements).

[1] "Objection to QA Framework"
thread starting with JC objection and continuing with KD&DH rebuttals -- 
about whether we are contravening W3M decisions, and following proper W3C 
procedures.  Thread starts at:
[1a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0014.html [JC]
[1b] ...switched to qa-chairs, text will be made available to QAWG on 1/23...

[2] "Objection to not formally addressing comment"
thread wherein JC objects to our lack of formal response to some comments 
he made in July on www-qa (which themselves resulted in signficant 
QAWG/public discussion thread).  KD replies/rebuts.  Start at:
[2a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0016.html

[3] "Objection to not listing open issues when advancing to CR"
thread wherein JC objects to not listing his TestGL concerns as open issues 
when advancing OpsGL and SpecGL to CR, and objects to progressing the 3 
parts at different pace.  KD replies.  Start at:
[3a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0017.html

[4] "Personal review of QAF"
contribution from JC, w/ a review of the three parts of QAF, requesting 
formal consideration and reply.  Message and document are at:
[4a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0002.html
[4b] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jan/att-0000/

[5] "OWL WG comments on QA Documents"
contribution from OWL, official WG position on QAF.  Message containing 
comments is at:
[5a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0001.html

[6] "Web Ontology Working Group - Response to "call for  implementat"
contribution from OWL, their case study of applying OpsGL to their 
WG.  Background for [5] (undetermined yet, whether its contents require 
formal reply).
[6a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0000.html

[7] "RDF Core test driven development and QA Test Doc"
thread started by JC about TestGL, about whether it requires waterfall and 
prohibits XP (test-driven dev't).  Discussed last week (14-jan 
telecon).  Start at:
[7a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jan/0000.html

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC