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

draft minutes, qa wg 20050620 telcon

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:02:24 +0300
Message-Id: <f7236a90c9ad739311453faacccdeaae@ontologicon.com>
To: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 20-June-2005
--
Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis

Attendees:
(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DM) David Marston, IBM (guest)

Regrets:

Absent:

Summary of New Action Items: [...to be filled in after telcon...]
AI-20050620-1 Mark Send an email to Paul Grosso, XML Core issue (did 
not record deadline)
AI-20050620-2 Karl Send email to WAI about SpecGL issue, 20050620
AI-20050620-3 Karl to send draft of umbrella section to Dave, Lynne, 
200506222

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jun/0034.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jun/0011.html

1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership
(lr) Great job with the hotel reservations for the Dublin F2F.

2.) Update on QA Specification Guidelines.
     Lead: Karl

(kd) 3 issues for SpecGL, two are solved.

     * Ian Hickson - solved
     * XML Core WG/Paul Grosso - solved
(dh) We have no comments yet, so it is not clear that this issue is 
resolved.
(kd) Should we send an email to ask for comments, or state that the 
issue us understood? Mark?
(ms) OK, will ask for this in an email to Paul Grosso.

     * WAI CG - at work.
(kd) Added to the document the suggestions. Ready to wait for next 
wednesday, or should we expect to push it for the next few days?
(dh) best to get in touch with someone from WAI CG, if no response then 
wait.
(kd) Will try to do it today. We'll decide on next wednesday call. 
Document is ready otherwise. AI

     * Final editing work on Spec GL before publication.
(kd) Please check especially the "beyond conformance" section. I really 
hope we have something ready before the end of this week.

3.) Update on ViS: Umbrella Specification discussion
     Lead: Karl
     See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jun/0016

(kd) had an action item last week to start a discussion about umbrella 
specifications. the discussion has been helpful to make the issue more 
understandable. there are two issues:
1. is variability in specification the right place for umbrella spec 
terminology
2. what does it mean for us to have the term umbrella spec?

(kd) could be very useful, but is it not at the right place. we have to 
think about where to put it. david and dom have suggested to place it 
at the end or beginning of the document.
(dm) partly constraining, do not want to put specGL off track. put it 
at the end of "variability".
(lr) within the variability section, because you may have many 
profiles, we need the concept of family of specifications, or 
derivative specs. there is a need to know about these derivatives, so 
you need the concept. divide it into a family of specs that are related
(lh) if this was informative content as opposed to normative, do 
process rules prohibit that from being done at PR stage?
(dh) the process does not prevent it, but I would be reluctant to put 
something so fresh in the document.
(kd) it has been removed from the document because of an issue, which 
is another reason against it. we would have to reopen the issue to deal 
with it. not comfortable to edit a document that is in PR. it might 
create a precedent, since we would be the first to do it. better to 
find a place inside the "variability", perhaps at the end.
(kd) if we put it at the bottom, we need someone to organize the prose. 
I've made an outline of the content, put there is not a logical 
progression. Volonteer?
(dm) I could even out the rough edges, not sure I can take on the major 
issues.
(kd) Karl will send outline of the Umbrella section to Dave Marston and 
Lynne. AI, two days.

(kd) how do people in the WG to have it as a last section in the 
document? no objections, consensus to have in in the end of the 
document.
(dh) only editorial issues left.
(kd) the concept of ViS we've developed, does it need more work?
(dh) good enough for publication
(kd) when do we plan to publish this document? 10 days from now.
(dh) should be published at the same time as SpecGL.

(dh) would like to start a discussion on TCDL (Test Case Description 
Language), since we said that we were to work on thes before closing 
work as a WG.
(kd) issues about the copyright/IPR?

(dh) can we start form what is in the Wiki for TCDL?
(dd) we only have a a couple of months, last time we worked on it 
(myself and Patrick), we didn't manage to get it out in document form. 
I'm obviously interested, but there are time issues.
(kd) NIST interested? Lofton?
(lr)
(lh) worth to work on, it's been delyed for a number of reasons, 
dimitris is right in that we won't get anything significant done in two 
months. Management may be prone to consider that it's work in progress.
(kd) Patrick?
(pc) Yes
(kd) Richard?
(rk) yes, but concerned about time issues
(dh) just sent email to the wg list to see if there is interest

(kd) meeting adjourned (11.53)
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 16:02:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 20 June 2005 16:02:26 GMT