Re: QAF Primer and User Scenarios comments

Thanks for the review and comments Lynne, for QAH and for Primer 
also.  I'll review and apply them.  If any aren't straightforward, I'll 
flag them to QAWG for discussion.

-Lofton.


At 10:23 PM 9/27/2004 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>Reading through the Primer and User Scenarios - found these typos, 
>grammar, etc.  No real issues, but I did have a question as to the meaning 
>of a few things.
>
>1. Spell out 'spec’
>
>2 Introduction
>Add (planned) after Test Guidelines [QAF-TEST]
>
>3. Audiences
>All Participants
>Change last ‘specifications’ to ‘specification’
>
>Spec editors and authors (remove spec or make it capital S)
>- add ‘of’ after understanding
>- change order of ‘examples, tools, and templates’ to ‘examples, templates 
>and tools’ (this is also consistent with how it is listed later)
>- reword last part of last sentence since SpecGL does more than structure 
>and formats (in fact it doesn’t do much of that).  Suggest, ‘…valuable 
>resource in organizing and writing a high-quality specification, 
>facilitating its production.
>
>3. First Step  QA commitment, 2nd paragraph
>remove ‘the’, ‘…and if the it is able to anticipate…’
>
>4. Planning and Writing the Spec  modify the list
>remove ‘writing with test assertions
>reword first bullet to ‘conformance policy, clause and claims’
>reword last bullet to ‘profiles, levels, modules’
>
>5. Reviewing and Progressing the Spec
>2nd para, ‘…it gives and informed set of evaluation criteria’  what is 
>meant by ‘informed set’
>
>last paragraph, suggest remove ‘conformance’ from ‘..significant 
>conformance test materials…’  This would make it a broader statement.  The 
>tests may not be conformance tests.
>
>
>--regards
>lynne
>
>