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

Re: Response: Two more comments on "SpecLite"

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:30:00 +0100
Message-ID: <40D2FC68.10002@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Fine - I'll get the correct numbers for OWL to you next week.

I reiterate that you would benefit from a fresh sceptical reviewer for 
the DoV stuff - the key issue I suggest is whether the DoV stuff is 
sufficiently understandable at the Spec GL level or whether the expanded 
version (in the suggested new note) is needed or not. I don't know and 
can't tell, but if it is not needed, I think the SpecGL would be better 
without effectively a technical appendix; if it is needed then I agree 
that it is worth doing rather than deleting those Ps and GLs that 
effectively assume an understanding of it.


Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

> 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 10:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:33 UTC