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

RE: Objection to resolution of LC comment [was: Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:12:39 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03050D9FC7@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <www-qa@w3.org>

Mark Skall and I had a telcon about my objection last
week, and I think we both increased our understanding
of each other's thoughts on the matter.

At this time, I am willing to withdraw my objection to
the resolution of the referenced LC comment.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Grosso 
> Sent: Wednesday, 01 June, 2005 10:49
> To: Karl Dubost; Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux
> Cc: w3c-archive@w3.org; ht@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Objection to resolution of LC comment [was: 
> Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products]
> 
> Since it didn't sound like there was any need to do so,
> I didn't have plans to reply to this, but on today's
> XML Core WG telcon, Henry informed me that there was
> a possibility that the QA WG was holding things up
> awaiting a response from me.
> 
> Regardless of my opinion here, I don't mean to be 
> holding up the process by inaction, so Henry and I
> agreed I should send something.
> 
> So I'm sending this to let you know that you should
> proceed with the process assuming that I have nothing
> to add to my previous comment and nothing new to say
> in response to this response.
> 
> paul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@w3.org] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, 31 May, 2005 9:34
> > To: Paul Grosso
> > Cc: www-qa@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Objection to resolution of LC comment [was: 
> > Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products]
> > 
> > Dear Paul,
> > 
> > We are replying to your _personal_ objection. Notice that it's  
> > unusual in the W3C Process. The first objection and the opening of  
> > the issue was coming from the XML Core WG, and it seems 
> that there's  
> > no WG statement as you said, then the QA WG should move 
> forward with  
> > this issue, because the deadline for raising issues is far beyond  
> > now. If you need examples, there are plenty of examples in  
> > specifications out there, and I could give you a full list.
> > 
> > Please be sure to read the full email before replying.
> > 
> > Le 05-05-25 ŗ 21:23, Paul Grosso a ťcrit :
> > > Karl, QA WG,
> > >
> > > The XML Core WG discussed this once more today.  Other
> > > WG members share some of my concerns and confusion, but
> > > the WG decided not to make a WG statement.
> > 
> > Though we believe in the QA WG, that it's necessary to try to 
> > explain  
> > you the notion of class of products because it seems it's a 
> > source of  
> > confusion for you.
> > 
> > > Therefore,
> > > this statement is coming just from me (though other
> > > WG members may also make follow up comments on their on).
> > > Please consider this email to be my rejection of your
> > > response [1] to my comment [2] on the QA Framework Last Call.
> > 
> > Let's be clear, you understand that you can't reject 
> something that  
> > has not been made by Paul Grosso, but by the XML Core WG. 
> > This is the  
> > answer of the QA WG to the XML Core WG.
> > 
> > Answer:
> > 
> > Please understand that the Specification Guidelines are a 
> part of a  
> > Quality Assurance practice that has been suggested for W3C Working  
> > Groups. Significantly, another part of the practice is for WGs to  
> > issue test materials as well as documents. When a WG contemplates  
> > assembling and issuing a set of test cases, they must 
> consider which  
> > class of products will be the test subjects. The test cases 
> will be  
> > applied to each of the subject products, all of one class and  
> > supposedly interoperable, and their respective results will be  
> > compared against the results that represent the standard of  
> > conformance. The notion of measuring conformance through testing  
> > motivates the SpecGL requirement for a "conformance clause" [A] of  
> > each spec, so that vendors intending to build conformant 
> > products can  
> > determine how to conform and which of their products could be 
> > subject  
> > to application of a W3C-sanctioned testing regime.
> > 
> > Your objection says:
> >  >Furthermore, many of the core XML specs are, in fact, referenced
> >  >by other specs that may well be applicable to other classes of
> >  >products not mentioned in the core spec.
> > 
> > Each spec must make its own designations of the class(es) of 
> > products  
> > for which it intends to define conformant behavior, if any. 
> If it is  
> > also cited as normative by additional specs, each of the 
> other specs  
> > is designating their own class(es) of products for which 
> they intend  
> > to define conformant behavior, and so on. A very abstract  
> > specification such as InfoSet may not define conformant 
> behavior of  
> > any class of product, but still be available to be cited 
> normatively  
> > by other specs. In this paragraph, the word "designate" means that  
> > the WG commits to providing an objective standard by which an  
> > independent test lab can measure conformance of individual 
> products  
> > (instances of the class of products). Such a commitment is 
> fulfilled  
> > by appropriate wording in the spec (e.g., "A conforming XML 
> > processor  
> > MUST [exhibit certain behavior]...") and issuance of test 
> cases will  
> > extend the WG's fulfillment.
> > 
> > In addition to providing an objective standard of conformance and  
> > possibly some conformance tests for one or a few classes of 
> > products,  
> > the spec may have the effect of imposing constraints on, 
> and giving  
> > guidance to, developers of products in other classes. The WG 
> > may wish  
> > to recognize in the spec that the spec has such an impact, while  
> > stating that they do not intend to provide an objective 
> standard of  
> > conformance. When the WG examines the full range of products 
> > that can  
> > be impacted by their spec, they can ask themselves, for each 
> > class of  
> > product: Do we intend to publish conformance measurement 
> > criteria and  
> > tests? The class(es) of product for which they answer "yes" 
> are the  
> > one(s) that must be itemized in the conformance clause. (If this  
> > analysis proceeded product-by-product instead of 
> class-by-class, it  
> > would be an exercise in discriminating against certain vendors.) A  
> > class of products for which the WG answers "yes" is one 
> where the WG  
> > takes direct action to impose criteria for measurable 
> > interoperability.
> > 
> > In summary, the QA Working Group feels that the term "class of  
> > products" is a useful and well-defined concept in our 
> Specification  
> > Guidelines.  The Working Group would be more than happy to 
> consider  
> > specific wording changes that you suggest to make the "class of  
> > products" concept clearer and more precise in our Guidelines.
> > 
> > 
> > [A] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#include- 
> > conformance-clause-principle
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
> > W3C Conformance Manager
> > *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
> > 
> > 
> > 
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 20:14:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:01 GMT