- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:43:44 -0400
- To: Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51680180.50808@w3.org>
The formal guidance is kind of split across Transition-to-CR [1] and Transition-to-PR [2] (that is, out of CR): from LC to CR: Implementation information * Are there any implementation requirements beyond the defaults of the Process Document? For instance, is the expectation to show two complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented twice in /some/ piece of software? * What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional features? In general, the Director expects mandatory features and optional features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability) may require less implementability testing. * Is there a preliminary implementation report? The implementation report should be a detailed matrix showing which software implements each feature of the specification. * What are expectations about additional software that is expected to implement the specification during CR? * What is the minimal duration of the CR period? Estimate of how long it will take before requesting PR? * Are there any features at risk <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#at-risk-feature>? * Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day or workshop? Is one planned?)? * Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented? If not, what metrics will the WG use? If there are special conditions for this specification related to evaluation of implementations, what are they? Are test suites planned at any time? If there are tests or test suites available, are there links between the tests and the features of the specification they purport to test? from CR to PR: Implementation information * Have the default requirements of the Process Document been satisfied (e.g., implementation of each feature, preferably two implementations)? * If there were any additional implementation requirements established by the group, were they satisfied? * The request MUST Include a link to a final implementation report, or, if there is no such report, rationale why the Director should approve the request nonetheless. I don't see anything constraining what an Implementation Report is, except that it includes the parts of this information that are not in the TransReq itself. I was a bit surprised that we had no problem with the SPARQL 1.1 Implementation Report being just a table showing which implementations passed which tests: See: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Transition_Request_Oct_2012#Implementations In contrast, here was the first one I was involved with: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls (which ALSO had the table of test results, linked from the top). -- Sandro [1] http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr [2] http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=pr-tr
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 12:43:55 UTC