W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

Re: W3C QAWG Last Call comments solicited

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:00:25 +0100
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030228120025.GG6118@w3.org>

* Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> [2003-02-24 10:13-0700]
> FYI.  This is mainly of interest within the W3C, but since it has technical
> significance I'll send it to the public list.
> 
>  
> > The QA Working Group (QAWG) is preparing to publish Last Call Working 
> > Drafts of these documents:
> > 
> > 	* QA Framework:  Introduction (Intro) [1]
> > 	* QA Framework:  Operational Guidelines (OpsGL) [2]
> > 	* QA Framework:  Specification Guidelines (SpecGL) [3]
> [..]
> > The QAWG welcomes all comments during the Last Call review period, but 
> > we particularly request that the follow groups commit to providing 
> > feedback by March 14th.
> [..]
> > * Web Services
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-intro-20030210/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/

So, as promised yesterday night during the call, I started having a
look at those documents.

As I forecasted, they will be significant to us because, once they are
approved, my understanding is that we will be asked to implement
checkpoints whose priority is 1:

|   Some checkpoints are more critical than others for the timely
|   production of high-quality, highly usable test materials. Therefore
|   each checkpoint has a priority level based on the checkpoint's impact
|   on the quality and timing of the test materials produced by a Working
|   Group.
|   
|   [Priority 1]
|          Critical/essential. These checkpoints are considered to be
|          basic requirements for ensuring that test materials are
|          usable, and are produced in time to ensure the quality of the
|          standard and its implementations. Satisfying these checkpoints
|          is a basic requirement to ensure quality and interoperability
|          of the standard.

I have quickly read the documents, and what they are asking makes
sense to me. Some part of it will not apply directly to us since we
are not producing a specification, but we should have people read it
anyway.

I will also quote the introduction document[4] about who should read
those documents:

|    4.1.2 For the Introduction     
|       
|   This first part, "Introduction", should be read by everyone involved
|   with the work of the WGs. In addition to reviewing the scope and
|   goals of the QA Activity, and QA activities within the WGs, it also
|   provides a detailed roadmap and guide to the Framework documents
|   family.
[..]
|    4.1.3 For the guideline parts
|    
|   From the perspective of conformance and quality practices, several
|   roles are significant in a WG's activities. In the following it is  
|   assumed that, associated with each WG, there will be a "Test" group
|   (WG-TS), that is focused on conformance test suites and tools. WG-TS
|   consists of a subset of the WG members, and possibly other W3C
|   members from outside of the WG. (The WG-TS requirement is detailed in
|   the operational guidelines.)
|   
|   all WG members
|          For any (potential) WG member, the charter and QA-commitment
|          parts of Operational Guidelines ([QAF-OPS], Guideline 1)
|          should be helpful in understanding what the WG has committed
|          to deliver. Familiarity with the Specification Guidelines
|          [QAF-SPEC] will be helpful to any member who participates in
|          the advancement of the WG's specifications to Recommendation.
|          
|   WG spec editors & authors
|          As for all WG members, the operational guidelines [QAF-OPS]
|          are useful. A good working understanding of specification
|          guidelines [QAF-SPEC] will be needed in order to satisfy the
|          specification guidelines and checkpoints, and Specification
|          Examples & Techniques [SPEC-EXTECH] should be a valuable
|          resource in choosing document structure, formats, and
|          techniques that will facilitate satisfying the requirements.
|          
|   WG chair
|          As the person ultimately responsible for both the advancement
|          of the WG's specifications and the WG's QA projects, a
|          familiarity with the guidelines for operations and process
|          [QAF-OPS], for specifications [QAF-SPEC], and for test
|          materials [QAF-TEST] will be useful.

One of things that I will note is that one of the checkpoints that we
will have to meet is: Checkpoint 4.1. Appoint a QA moderator.
[Priority 1]. "The QA moderator is the overall manager of all of the
QA activities in the Working Group, and (by default) principal
point-of-contact."

I think that having somebody in this role ASAY will help us be clear
about our commitments.

One comment that we could make to the QA people is that I am not sure
that their framework has considered a Working Group which wouldn't
produce a technology per se, such as ours. We should probably discuss
that with them next week.

Regards,

Hugo

  4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-intro-20030210/#b2ab3d197
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 07:00:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT