RE: ACTION-837 - Provide explanatory text for the addendum... ISSUE-272 a new name ISSUE-273 for which document? ISSUE-274 which texts are needed?

Hi Jo,

> I think we are talking about different things. In my original 
> mail I was making the point that that BP document defines 
> some loose "what to test" 
> notions that do not relate to the DDC. mobileOK Basic Tests 
> defines machine tests only for the DDC - mobileOK Pro was to 
> define human tests only for the DDC.

I think the scope of the document is somewhat larger than just human
tests for the DDC.
At least in the sense that if difficult issues were recognized, as did
happen, these ought to be and have been brought to the attention of the
WG.
Unfortunately the WG chose not to respond and so the information was
left in the document to be used by whoever wishes to.
As such some of the information may be viewed as loose, but if the test
itself is examined one will find it to be rather stringent.


> Now we have no more Pro we need to re-evaluate whether having 
> an addendum that talks only about human tests for the DDC 
> makes sense any more. In my view the addendum would make more 
> sense if it supplemented BP 1.0 in a more general way, by 
> presenting explanatory text on the BPs where necessary and by 
> presenting better "what to test" material.

Perhaps.  I think I know what you mean, but we would  have to identify
exactly where this would be useful, what information would be provided
and how it would have to structured.
I would ask for clear instructions by the group that have been formally
agreed upon via resolution.


> This hopefully has the effect of repurposing all the 
> substantive material in the document today as well as 
> allowing greater flexibility on BPs we might wish to add 
> comment on, in the light of experience. I agree that this 
> should not be in stead of a new revision of BP, but I don't 
> think the level of comments we might want to make necessitates that.

Again, that would have to be seen.  
In my interpretation of what you suggest this could go as far as
resulting in a new version of the orginal BP document.
Overall I would welcome this step, as it would in fact fulfill what I
have been saying all along...round out the existing document and provide
better information to the content author.

 
> I thought this was what we agreed in Sophia, but clearly this 
> is not a universally shared view ...

Well, as I have said before, we didn't agree on anything
really....except I believe one point which now escapes me at the moment.
Reading the minutes it seemed more like a "good that we talked about it"
discussion, rather than providing a clear goal or even a direction.


-- Kai

Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 09:44:19 UTC