The current schedule is centered about the GRDDL Specification itself,
and of course things being released later like the GRDDL Test-cases are
going to be staggered behind it.

My thinking in general is that if the editor feels like they can do it
(i.e. the "heavy-lifting" and enough members of the WG agree that it
would be good, then it can go forward.

As for GRDDL Spec, I see no reason why it would have a PR phase, as we
dropped the IETF dependency.

I don't see any reason, especially as implementers have been keeping up,
that the PR phase would also be needed for GRDDL test cases or, say, the
GRDDL Primer.

I also don't see in W3C Process any minimum amount of time one should be
in Working Draft mode for the Test Cases. So, we could move in a few
weeks (I'd say one more month) to Last Call (giving everyone enough time
to finish their test-case creation), but it in Last Call in beginning of
May, then move it to CR in the beginning of June, and then end with it
going to Rec in July. Which keeps us within charter.

What do people think? That's a tight time-schedule but I think as the
test-cases are important for this work and part of the charter, I'm
leaning in favor of doing it - assuming Chime feels he can deal with
comments to the Test-Case document promptly and the rest of the WG feels
they can more or less finish up test-case work within a month.

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> 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


Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 6B522426

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:34:13 UTC