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

Draft minutes of QA WG Telcon 22-March-2004

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:14:42 -0800
To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <4069D532.8090302@sun.com>

Draft Minutes

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 22-March-2004
Scribe: Patrick

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)           
(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)


(MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)


(DM) David Marston (IBM)

No new Action Items were assigned

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Mar/0073.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 

1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) routine business
        - Future telecons [0]

Handbook and outline of testgl next week

        - June f2f dates & location

Discussion of dates: Olivier has conflict June 14, Mark may have 
conflict June 8
Will meet Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
Week of June 7th is best
Two choices of venue: Montreal and Santa Clara
Consensus is for Santa Clara

3.) SpecLite
        - proposed outline  [1]

[LR] reviews her outline
Is this the right level?
Are these the points we want to make? (add, change, delete?)

Specifying Conformance: this is the heart of the document - everything you
need to know is here...

[PC]: two of the top-level sections (B and E) seem to address good 
practices rather than
the form/requirements for spec. Should these be embedded rather than in 
a separate section?

[LR]: just about everything can be classified as "specify conformance"
How to structure - make it readable, not overwhelming?

[LH]: 'A' points to everything else.

[LR]: two elements: what you need to talk about performance
miscellaneous: "define the scope", "review the spec"
[PC]: these really are best practices - how to get there - rather than 
the class of product (the spec). We had similar problems with TestGL - 
we wanted to
recommend "review spec", define scope, test the tests, etc. -

[LH]: agrees B and E are different animals - unless we get a concrete 
proposal for
how to rework this, go with this structure

[LR]/[LH]: discuss value of the scope section

[LR]: agrees in principle that "process stuff" should be "merged in" to 
other sections

[LR]: do we need to define "conformance model"?
Consensus: yes
Section A.1 contains a brief description/analysis

David: do these guidelines focus on specs for conformance as opposed to 
other purposes
of specs?
[LR]: yes - and we should make this clear in title/introduction
[LR]: Reviews in detail

Section A: like a table of contents. Everything will end up in a 
conformance clause
Look in other sections for more detail. This section should link to a 
An experienced spec-writer might learn everything needed from this section.
Could be used as a checklist.
Section A2: make this an advanced topic?
[LH]: no - this is important, and not too difficult to understand
[LR]: should it be moved elsewehere?
No: keep it where it is for now?

Section B: Discussion of specs (eg RDF, XPath) to which one doesn't 
conform directly,
but via other specs that 'include' or 'reference' them

Section C: define terms - [LR]: this should focus on conformance clause. 
Should this be applied more broadly? No need - it's in manual of style

Ran out of time. Discuss in email...
[LH] suggests we discuss in telecon two weeks from today
Should we create an issues list? Consensu: yes = after first working draft

4.) Adjourn

5.) Overflow (12-12:30): available.

[0] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#sched
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Mar/0064.html
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 16:34:16 UTC

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