W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Minutes QAWG 20020128

From: Jinghao Liu <jinghaol@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:08:15 -0800
Message-ID: <B7E0BEA478EBC24EBB2CF19F7107602302363DE0@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, <www-qa@w3.org>
Hi all,

That was my first time to attend QAWG telconf.  Very interesting meeting.

I wonder that is there any effort of develop a test suite for W3C XPath or XQuery being taken.

Thanks
Jinghao

-----Original Message-----
From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:54 AM
To: www-qa@w3.org
Subject: Minutes QAWG 20020128

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 28-January-2002
--
Scribe: 
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)

Attendees:
(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(JL) Jinghao Liu (Microsoft)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)

Regrets: 
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Absent: 
(SA) Selim Aissi (Intel)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)


Summary of New Action Items:
ACTION: A-2002-01-28-1 LH to contact JM about his participation to the
WG
ACTION: A-2002-01-28-2 DD to prepare various comm announcements for the
FPWD, send it for review in advance to the WG
ACTION: A-2002-01-28-3 LR to re-read the section and a proposal for a
rewording.

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0093.html

Minutes:
1) Roll call
DD tried to ping KH (follow-up on his AI A-2002-01-17-1), but got no
reply. Will try again.
ACTION: A-2002-01-28-1 LH to contact JM about his participation to the
WG

2) FPWD Director's permission
KD and DD tried to contact Tim to get approval for first public working
draft (FPWD), but without success. DD explains there has been a lot of
comm activity lately due to web services activity launch.
DD asks DH what needs to be done before publication, DH clarifies
(checking compliance to publication rules [pubrules]
http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules [Member Only].
DD suggests to plan announcements to send at publication time: chairs,
public announcement?, homepage news, item in the newsletter, ...
ACTION: A-2002-01-28-2 DD to prepare various comm announcements for the
FPWD, send it for review in advance to the WG

Update at the end of teleconf: KD got approval for publication from DD
and Janet, which is equivalent to Tim's approval according to pubrules.

3) Editors' status reports
LH got some good comments about "QA Framework: Introduction" [INTRO],
will try to integrate them, make various fixes and make it pubrules
compliant the following day (2002-01-29)
KG will finish to work on "QA Framework: Process & Operational
Guidelines" [P&O], but needs some update on various items which will be
discussed later in the call. KG plan to have a doc ready the following
day (2002-01-29) to hand over to LH who will make it pubrules compliant.

4) Pubrules concerns
LH has gone through the publication process once and feels he can manage
that process now. DH confirms that if the doc can go through the
pubrules checker http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form [Member only],
the doc should be ready to go

5) Issues discussion
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html -> prioritized at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0119.html revised
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0124.html

a) Issues raised by KG
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0121.html
* Issue #1: "10 levels of commitment" list.
KG presents the issue and DD clarifies his point of view: he doesn't
want to revert to the original form, just prefered the links that were
in it which made navigation easier. LH explained that the links were
lost due to a limitation of the XSLT stylesheet, which will be fixed. 
DECISION: Regarding the level of commitment of the WG to QA (issue 33),
it is decided to leave the issue open and postopone its resolution after
the FPWD.
* Issue #2: Ch 3 without Guidelines/Checkpoints: 
DECISION: agreed to leave it there for FPWD and have corresponding Issue
active. For FPWD:
 - KG will put the sentence to the beginning of the chapter that this is
done intentionally.
 - KG will add the sentence to the subsection 3 to empathize that WG may
proactively initiate reviews.
* Issue #3: Lynne's Gd 1 change: 
DECISION: Postponed
* Issue #4: Test materials not in TR space: 
DECISION: proposal accepted. Issue closed [closes #47 in the issue list]
* Issue #5: Checkpoints priorities
DECISION: proposal accepted. Issue closed

b) Issues raised by AT
As AT is absent, KG presents the issues as they refer to P&O.
* Issue #1: Test material development license: DD details the 2 licenses
mode existing in W3C, the document license and the software [sw]
license, the former not allowing any changes to the resource, whereas
the latter does. 
2 questions: do we constrain the WG into one of those 2 licenses? Do we
leave the choice to the WG, and in that case, do we allow other open
sources licenses?
KG prefers the doc license as it will allow companies to publish their
test suite that they might not want to publish the sw license. LR
prefers the WG decide. She stresses that in some case, the WG may not
even have choice regarding the license, since if it comes from the
community, the license may have already been chosen. DD feels that the
license checkpoint should be split in 2 part, one about the open and
free avaibility of the test suite, another about the licensing mode. LH
wonders if it should be defined that the licensing mode be compatible
with the W3C Terms. He warns that the choice of licensing mode can have
a big impact on the public.
DECISION: KG agrees to split the checkpoint as discussed and propose to
discuss further by email. 
DD thinks the priority of the second part should be P1 too, and might be
changed later.

* Issue #2: liability 
KG is not sure to have fully understood what AT meant by that. He thinks
that a disclaimer for the test suite [TS] has already been addressed in
the doc. DD thinks a guideline [GL] should be added saying that passing
the TS doesn't mean conformance. dd proposes a wording stating that
failing the test means not being conformant. LR agrees, but LH feels
it's a bit too strong. 
KD quotes the cases of UAAG where all the checkpoints are not applicable
to all the browsers. DD stresses the need of a context definition for a
TS. dd feels that it's up to the specification to be clear on the
comformance context, not to the TS to delimit it. LR thinks that any
"MUST" failed show that the product is not compliant to the spec. dd
shows that it implies that the spec uses the right outline of
conformance level
DECISION: KG proposes to reword the disclaimer section, postpone its
resolution and work on it by email.

Verification of closure:
Issue #46: Should 'QAWG relationship to WGs" be informative or
normative?
LR feels that the second part of the section should be moved into the
appendix. DD agrees and shows that it's not a requirement for the WG but
for the QA. LH thinks that there should be a paragraph similar to the
other sections. DD proposes to say something normative about how the WG
react to a review coming from QA.
ACTION: A-2002-01-28-3 LR to re-read the section and a proposal for a
rewording.
DD feels that this section should not be published as is in the FPWD
because it's confusing. KG will move the last sentence of the section at
the begin so that it should be clearer.

Issue #47: Should test materials be published in TR space? 
DECISION: closed earlier

Issue #48: Should the planned Technical Guidelines be a
guideline-checkpoint part of the Framework doc family?
There is a naming problem with the potential 4th document of the
Framework (Technical GL and Technical techniques). LH proposes "Test
material GL" instead. The second part of the issue is to know if such a
document would have its place in the framework family. Editors (dd, KG,
LH) believe that there will be conformance requirements (checkpoints) on
test materials, as well as examples and techniques (tools and
resources).  So the Gd/Ck would go into "Test Materials Guidelines", and
the ex&tech would go into "Test Materials Examples and Techniques".  DD
questioned the relationship between the last part and the section in the
Frm:Intro document, "Technical assets".

DECISION:  Keep the 4th document (two parts) in the Framework, rename
"Technical" to "Test Materials", and add a comment to the Frm:Intro
"Technical Assets" section, pointing out the connection between the
stuff in the section and the "Test Materials Examples and Techniques".

6) Thursday telcon cancel?
DECISION: No telecon on thursday 2002-01-31 due to several missing
people and the progress done during this one
Next telecon on thursay 2002-02-14

-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C's Webmaster
mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 16:08:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:58 GMT