W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2003

Re: QAF Ops Guidelines review action [LONG]

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:18:58 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f4fbc06746a5be0@[10.0.1.5]>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, www-webont-wg@w3.org

great job Evan and Jeremy --
Some edits (despite length of document :->) -- I've snipped eveything 
that isn't germane to one of these comments -

At 18:16 -0500 12/16/03, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

>
>1.3 Constraining other WGs
>
>The Web Ontology WG believes that Rec track documents should define
>technology and define conformance clauses for software, hardware, and also
>specifications, but should not mandate that W3C working groups or specs
>must be conformant.
>

I personally would prefer to delete or edit this clause -- I'm not 
sure I agree that WGs should define conformance clauses (that's 
wrong, I'm sure I disagree with this in general) - also, I find the 
paragraph above a bit ambiguous -- are we saying that QA constrains 
other groups, that we don't want to constrain others, etc -- So I'm 
not clear on what we are saying here, and I don't agree with the 
little bit I do understand...

>
>1.4 WebOnt did well without the CR QA Framework
>
...  Extensive tests were
>defined and test results are now available [OWL-TEST-RESULTS] for ten
>different OWL tools.

actually we ended up with more than that (13 or 14 I think - cannot 
check now as my server is flaky)




>WebOnt:
>The test cases were not ready for the OWL Last Call, and were published
>shortly after. This means that one or two tests in the OWL Test Last Call
>reflect last call issue resolutions, rather than the text of the other OWL
>last call documents. However, this did not appear to present any difficulties.
>It may have been easier if we had been clearer in our planning and had
>decided earlier that we would do that. The test document was central in the
>Candidate Rec phase, although in practice implementors were encouraged to
>work with the public editors' draft of the test document (particularly the
>list of proposed, approved and obsoleted tests in the test manifest). This
>allowed rapid feedback on WG decisions and new tests. As we approach
>Proposed Recommendation, it is arguable that we would have done better if
>we had planned for a staggered release, with the test document coming last.
>As it is, key conformance clauses are in the test document which prevented
>such staggering.
>
>

i'm not 100% sure we'd have been better off staggering the release, 
but I could live with this...

>Document structure -  The components of the QA Ops document are not
>sufficiently large or independent of each other to justify the
>compound structure of this document.  I found it quite frustrating to
>navigate this version while relating the checkpoints to our WG
>actions.  Recommend making the single HTML file the normative version
>of QAF-OPS.

the "I" should be "we" in the above if this is a consensus review by the WG

----
so not many comments for a very long effort -- nice job - and with a 
little attention to the above (and Dan's notes) I could support the 
submission of this as a WG review...
  -JH

-- 
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:03 GMT