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

Re: draft personal review of QA stuff

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:00:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200312181700.MAA17606@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Evan and I had the relatively narrow task of looking at the QA-OPS
>guidelines ... I feel a desire to comment on the QA framework as a whole,
>and intend to do so as a personal comment to be sent after the webont
comment (assuming we agree to something like what we have).
>I thought it might be helpful to let WebOnt see my current thoughts ... we
>could, for example, decide that some points were so important that they
>needed to be made by the WG - however I think the review prepared by Evan
>and myself is sufficient.

We have made some general comments on the QAF in our review.  At a minimum,
I would like to see some form of these comments become WG position.  It is
an appropriate time to make such comments and our extensive analysis of the 
Operational Guidelines was quite sufficient to give us an overall feel for 
the QAF.

>(Unlikely ... I really am much too extreme in my opposition to this stuff -
>I see that a repeating theme is that they commit to AAA quality in their
>charter but seem remarkably short on fulfilment - and I get quite angry
>about this armchair quality work, which is itself too mediocre)

This anger is justified for the CR documents IMO.  I wouldn't go as far
as to say that they are mediocre.  A lot of thought went into the 
Framework and a disciplined approach is in evidence.  The quality and
completeness is just not what it should be for CR documents, and the
whole thing is just much too big and bulky to serve in its intended role.
In this role an even higher standard must be applied than to other
W3C documents.

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 12:00:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:56 UTC