W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Interrelationships between dimensions of variability

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:03:47 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 02:54 PM 6/3/03 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>In my opinion, a good way to sensibilise the readers about this aspect
>would be to provide an informative table about typical problematic
>relationships between DoV. The goal would be to fill each cases of the
>table at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/06/dov-relations
>So, if you have any experience showing how such or such DoV
>relationships hurt interoperability, or some specific details on points
>that should be addressed when combining DoV X and DoV Y, please share
>them with us, and I'll try to keep the table up to date (and probably
>integrate it in the SpecGL later on).

Such a table is a good idea.  Once we have such a table with significantly 
filled-in entries, it might actually be more appropriate to put it in 
SpecET.  This level of detail might be overwhelming for SpecGL.

For the next version of SpecGL, I think that we would satisfy the related 
Last Call (LC) comments/issues with something that is not as complete.  The 
LC commentors basically did not understand what the various "DoV 
interrelationship" checkpoints were asking for.

So the new SpecGL subsection could be a brief conceptual description ... 
that some DoV used in a specification might interrelate (e.g., maybe both 
modules and profiles are used, and profiles are built from atomic modules), 
that some combinations might exacerbate interoperability problems, that 
some combinations might mitigate other potential interoperability traps, 
etc.  In addition, perhaps give a small handful of "for examples", e.g., a 
short bullet list of brief examples.

I think such a succinct treatment would satisfy the LC-21 comment, for 
example: "...define their [several CoP] relationships and interaction with 
other dimensions of variability' this is a confusing checkpoint that is 
repeated in each successive guideline. It's really not clear exactly what 
is intended."

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 17:03:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC