W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2005

Re: After Life for QA WG - Some Projects to work on

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:16:04 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <42F88264.6070600@sun.com>

I'll add this item to the list of potential improvements/modifications 
to TestFAQ that I'm working on...

Lofton Henderson wrote:

>
> About the possible integration of "Taxonomy" and "Test FAQ" -- how did 
> we leave that question and potential (small) project?
>
> -Lofton.
>
>
> At 03:30 PM 7/26/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>> QA WG,
>>
>> this is a proposal of things that could be done after the QA WG has
>> closed. All these ideas are open to discussions, comments and
>> concrete proposals. As a side note, all of these will work only if
>> people are inclined to work on them. It might be worthwhile to
>> discuss them, but it's even better if you think you can commit time
>> for it, to evaluate this time. It doesn't have to be a  lot of time.
>>     Sometimes 30 minutes by week could be as valuable
>>     for a project than 1 day every two months.
>>
>> You can propose also other projects.
>>
>>
>> Project I:  Test Markup Language
>>
>>     The start of a vocabulary is available on the wiki.
>>        http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestCaseMetadata
>>
>> These words have a short definition
>>     - identification
>>     - name
>>     - purpose
>>     - description
>>     - status
>>     - versioning
>>     - link to spec(s)
>>     - link to issue(s)
>>     - dependencies
>>     - grouping
>>     - variability-driven filtering criteria
>>     - input (or pre/post conditions?)
>>     - expected result
>>
>>
>>     First part of the work, for each word of this vocabulary.
>>         Time/Resource: 2 days for 2 persons
>>
>>     - is it required or not,
>>     - any syntax requirements,
>>     - description of it,
>>     - any dependencies, and
>>     - example.
>>
>>     Need to develop an outline of the type of information needed
>>     for each item. For now, just try to expand on a few items
>>     and then when we see what we get and need, we can make
>>     it more formalized. For each item, think about what is
>>     needed to describe it.
>>
>> This will set a kind of requirements document or model for a Test
>> Markup Language.
>>
>>     Second phase:
>>     Creating the specification for a language. This is not feasible
>> if not a lot of people participating.
>>
>>
>> * Specification Reviews against QA Framework Specification Guidelines.
>>
>>     The specifications can be announced on the www-qa ML and people
>> could review  them. Depending of the specifications it can be more or
>> less long to do. The benefits of such work,
>>     - we improve specifications quality,
>>     - you improve your technological skills.
>>
>>
>> * QA Spec Conformance Clause Template
>>     http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/SpecGL-template-root.html
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jul/ 
>> thread.html#20
>>     Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person
>>
>>     Finalize the QA Conformance Clause Template for QA Specl GL
>>
>>
>> * QA Spec Conformance Clause Form
>>     http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/SpecGL-template-root.html
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jul/ 
>> thread.html#20
>>     Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person
>>
>>     Make a form to ease the editing.
>>
>> * QA Process Document Template
>>     http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-qapd-root.html
>>     Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person
>>
>>     Finish the templates
>>
>> * QA Process Document Form
>>     http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-qapd-root.html
>>     Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person
>>
>>     Make a form to ease the editing.
>>
>>
>> * QA Charter
>>     http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-charter.html
>>     Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person
>>
>>     Create a template to help Staff contacts to take QA into account
>> in charter writing.
>>
>>
>>
>> * How to define elements in Markup Language
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jul/thread.html#6
>>     Time/Ressource: 1 week for 2 persons
>>     Initiator: Bjoern Hoehrmann
>>
>>     Elements are defined in many ways in specifications. Could we
>> create a best practices guides on how to define elements (features)
>> in a specification and then propose the markup for it.
>>
>>
>> * QA Primer
>>     http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer
>>     Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person
>>
>>     Rewriting and reorganization a bit of the QA Primer to make it
>> more appealing to editors.
>>
>>
>> * XMLSpec Analysis with regards to QA Framework
>>     http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/
>>     Time/Resource: 2 weeks for 2 persons
>>
>>     XMLSpec is a tool/vocabulary to write W3C specifications. The
>> goal of the work is to analyze how the vocabulary can be modified, or
>> which vocabulary to add that it makes easier to implement QA
>> Framework Specification Guidelines.
>>
>>
>> * XMLSpec Tutorial
>>     http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/
>>     Time/Resource: 3 weeks for 2 persons
>>
>>     Writing a guide to use XMLSpec
>>
>>
>> * XMLSpec <-> XHTML tools
>>     http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/
>>     Time/Resource: 3 weeks for 2 persons
>>
>>     Create tools to be able to edit with XHTML and classes and to
>> convert it with XMLSpec.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>> W3C Conformance Manager
>> *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 10:15:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 9 August 2005 10:15:44 GMT