Re: GRDDL PR or CR

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Problem:
> I don't think we have time for a LC on test cases before PR as in the
> current schedule.
>
> I see three (slightly) realistic plans
>
> a) as in the schedule
>   but with test cases going to Working Group Note as the spec goes to PR
>  The test cases then has two publications
>   - a first WD, with an initial set of tests
>   - a WG Note with all of them
>
> b) as in the schedule, except that we move the spec to CR instead of PR.
> The test cases, with a complete list of tests also goes to LC at the
> same time. We move both to PR when the LC expires (after WWW2007)
>
> c) We delay first publication of Test Cases for another week or two, and
> move it to first and last call, and stick to the schedule. This would
> require:
> - finishing additional tests
> - adding them to the test cases documents
> - deligent WG review of the TC doc
> - (my review was for a first WD not a LC WD, I would want to do a more
> careful review, paying detailed attention to the wording)
>
> ====
>
> I suppose, given the special circumstances, we could justify (c), but it
> is poor form. I'm making progress on creating the missing tests that the
> post-WG meeting discussion last week, saw as desirable.

I don't think delaying the first publication is useful given that we have 
substantial momentum with the the tests already collected (even if we only 
include those 'formally' approved).

> I think (a) doesn't really reflect the status of the test cases. As I
> see it:
> - a WG Note: the WG is finished, if review finds issues with this
> document, the WG may decide not to fix
> - a LC: the WG is finished, if review finds issues with this document,
> the WG will fix (in some way, not necessarily to the reviewer's liking)

I'm not sure I completely understand the staging of (a) as it is written 
(excuse me if I'm not completely up to speed on W3C rec track staging). 
However, I don't think a WG note target of the tests in tandem with the 
spec going to PR does due dilligence to implementors (and the 
corresponding implementation resport) who want to do more than 
just read the spec (sorry, but I have to be blunt) without an 
authoritative test suite to guide implementation development and 
demonstrate resolution of WG issues (of which we have a few - some of which have 
already generated LC commentary in the absence of a 'formal' test collection).

So, I come to the same conclusion that you do, noting your concern 
below about resources.

> There is a risk with (b) that we get to CR and then fail to have the 
> resources (particularly from the team) to get any further. However, since we 
> already have the interoperable systems, the CR should be very short.

I don't want to pre-empt the upcoming telecon agenda item (3. GRDDL 
Spec: Last Call) where we address LC commentary on the specification, but I'd like to suggest that we attempt to prioritize the 
outstanding LC commentary by how substantive they are given the risk of reduced resources.

> There are many W3C test suites that either choose (a) or something even less 
> formal. Most of the SW recs have a rec track test cases, I have previously 
> argued the benefits of this approach:

I believe, given the very seminal nature of GRDDL, the argument for a rec 
track test collection is that much stronger.  The WG has its work cut out 
for it in generating an implementation report in short order but it is 
important that we do so against a 'formal' framework (even if it 
is much smaller than we would like).

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 17:59:43 UTC