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

Re: QAF Ops Guidelines review action [LONG]

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:30:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200312172230.RAA16196@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc: ewallace@nist.gov


On Dec 17, Jim Hendler wrote:
>Some edits (despite length of document :->) -- I've snipped everything 
>that isn't germane to one of these comments -

>>
>>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...

We iterated on this one a few times before going with the text above.
1.3 is saying that W3C specs SHOULD include the basis for determining 
conformance, but that W3C working groups (QA or other) SHOULD NOT mandate 
that other W3C working groups conform.  In other words, conformance 
is optional.  If conformance is claimed, then conformance clauses and/or 
technology are employed to justify that claim.

You apparently disagree with the bit about defining conformance clauses, 
etc.  I would guess that you probably *do* agree that WGs *SHOULD NOT* 
mandate that other WGs conform (whatever conformance might mean without 
conformance clauses).  This latter point was the important one for
us.  I think that Jeremy and I would both agree with replacing the current
text for 1.3 with something that makes just this latter point.  Someone
want to suggest some text?


>>
>>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)

The Tested Systems portion of Sandro's Test Results page lists 13.  Shall
we go with this number?

>... 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...

It does say, "it is arguable" so let's leave it as written.

>>...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

It wasn't clear to me, while writing III, that it would represent a WG 
position.  I should probably go back and check it for other problems such as
the one noted.

Need further feedback on the first issue.  Will add the others to my edit
queue.

-Evan
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:36:12 GMT

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