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

Response: Two more comments on "SpecLite"

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:20:39 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040618090940.00aa0c28@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Hi Jermey

Just to close-out your additional 2 comments.



>>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/
>
>1) I found the dimensions of variability stuff pitched about right
>(sorry I haven't the text in front of me - I am sitting on some grass
>outside Genoa airport)
>I suspect that you will need another sceptical reviewer at some stage
>for it though - it is technically the hardest part of the document - and
>  I had already been convinced of its value.

Thanks for letting us know about the usefulness and level of discussion 
about dimensions of variability.  Our plan is to extract the original 
discussion and create a WG Note and then reference the Note from the new QA 
Spec.

>I thought I would offer the following story that you might like to
>include in that section:
>[[
>One WG decided to use the built-in datatypes from XML Schema in their
>specification. However, on inspection it become clear that a few of
>these were inappropriate, and that some implementors thought the cost of
>implementing all of the rest prohibitive. Thus the WG identified: five
>or six datatypes as not recommended, and two as required, leaving the
>other twelve as optional. They failed to identify subsets of the
>optional datatypes, leaving implementors free to choose any of the 4096
>possible subsets. The WG never articulated the extent of this freedom,
>nor wondered whether interoperability would be enhanced by restricting
>it in a sensible manner. Until they reached PR they also failed to
>consider the interaction between this and the profiles that their
>specification included. One of these profiles extended another
>specification that required the implementation of one of the optional
>datatypes. One AC reviewer drew critical attention to the potential
>conflicts in the datatypes mismatch at the extension point, resulting in
>heated discussion in the WG and a last minute patch to the specification
>in the last few weeks before it went to Recommendation.
>]]
>
>(The numbers are currently approximate, if you would like to use these
>text, pls let me know, and I will correct them to the actual values from
>OWL)

Great example.  We would like to use it, so yes pls we will need the 
correct values. Thanks

>2) The above story has followed what appears to be your convention of
>negative war stories being anonymous, whereas positive ones are
>attributed. Being one to let it all hang out, I tend to favour making
>both positive and negative war stories attributed, e.g. someone
>interested in the story about QAWG in section E, could look back at your
>aborted CR and the comments and get a more in depth feel for what went
>wrong and why.
>
>I think politeness could be maintained by asking the 'offending' WGs
>whether they mind having their negative experiences attributed to them
>in the QA documents. Perhaps some informal feelers on this issue would
>be an appropriate first step.

As you probably guessed, we have decided to not name the WG.  The benefit 
is small compared to its political sensitive nature.  However, if someone 
asked us, we would probably tell them which WG it was.

Thanks again for the comments.  As a formality, can you please respond with 
you acceptance/rejection of this email.

regards
Lynne
Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 09:23:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:16 GMT