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

Re: Response: Two more comments on "SpecLite"

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:54:57 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Hi Jeremy

Thanks again, for your candid remarks :),  They help to give us a data-point.


At 03:30 PM 6/18/2004 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>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
>>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.
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 18:59:06 UTC

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