Minutes 2001-12-20 QA Working Group Teleconference

Minutes 2001-12-20 QA Working Group Teleconference

Scribe:
Lynne Rosenthal

Attendees:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(DM) David Marston (Lotus)

Regrets:
Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
Selim Aissi (Intel)

Absent:
(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(DB) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(MF) Max Froumentin (W3C - XSLT)
(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
(RL) Rob Lanphier (Real Networks)
(OC) Oriol Carbo (U. of Edinburgh)
(GO) Gerald Oskoboiny (W3C - systems)

Summary of Action Items
A-2001-12-20-1: Lofton to reserve permanent time slot and ZAKIM bridge
A-2001-12-20-2: Lofton to initiate the Issues list by converting current 
issues into the XML Grammar+XSLT
A-2001-12-20-3:Lofton, Kirill, Dimitris and All: further develop Proc&Ops 
section 2.6  relationship with other WGs

A-2001-12-06-1: Kirill, Lofton, Dimitris:  discuss work load line: Done
A-2001-12-06-2: Kirill, Lofton, Dimitris: discuss timeline: Done
A-2001-12-06-3: All: review documents: Ongoing.  More feedback needed
A-2001-12-06-4: Karl, Daniel: bridge for 12/20 telconf: Done
A-2001-12-06-5: Dimitris: send source-forge pointer: Done
A-2001-12-06-6: All: issues tracking discussion: Completed today
A-2001-12-06-7: Dom, Karl, Olivier: web site re-org: Ongoing

(from Brussels  open actions only)
A-2001-11-12-2: Olivier: unified glossary: Send email on status
A-2001-11-12-3: Karl, Daniel: QA glossary: Pending
A-2001-11-12-4: Kirill: Serialized Infoset pointer: In progress
A-2001-11-13-2: Max: MathML validator: Unkown
A-2001-11-13-3: Karl: review of XML Fragment in Matrix: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Karl: updates to Matrix: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-10: Daniel: errata life after REC: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-11: Lofton, Kirill: collect technical data: Pending
A-2001-11-13-12, 13: Karl, Daniel: glossary and taxonomy: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-14: Olivier: glossary: Ongoing
A-2001-11-13-16: Daniel: check with other groups that model works: Unknown
A-2001-11-13-17: Lynne, Daniel: certification paper: Pending, sent to 
Daniel to progress

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Dec/0017.html

***********************************
Discussion

1.      Review Action Items (see above)

2.      Approval of permanent bi-weekly telconf time
All agree on Thursday, at 1400 Eastern Time (1900 GMT)
OT request ZAKIM be reserved.  If not available, the time slot takes 
precedence.
Action LH  time slot get ZAKIM permanent bridge

3.  QA at Cannes Tech Plenary
LH - there is proposed content for Wed's Plenary and agenda for Friday's 
meeting.  Any suggestions for topics? Need for Outreach during the week's 
meeting, in which there are liaisons with other functional and horizontal 
groups.  Want to be perceived as helpful and useful to other WG.  Postpone 
further discussion since DD unavailable and should be part of discussion.

Poll take of who will be at Cannes:
LH, LR, DH  plan to be there all week.
dd  will be in DOM meetings part of the week
OT, PF  working on approval
  MS  arrive on Wed

4. Issues Tracking
Email discussion included pointers to SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/) 
with an example at 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=377744&group_id=23194&func=browse
XML Protocol is using an XML Grammar with XSLT for procuding a presentable 
formal (HTML table) see: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/DOM-Level-2-issues This 
is also being used by DOM Level 2.

PF  has recently started to use source forge tracking software.
dd  DOM TS not dealt with issues tracking.  Issues have been discussed and 
resoved via the mail exploder. Haven't really used the SourceForge tracking 
system.
DH W3C member version of tracking software not available yet.
LH  need something immediately: 2 choices- both make for nice presentation, 
well organized, hyperlink tables .   Sourceforge allows one to distinguish 
between an admin vs general member.  Admin types are only ones that can 
initiate, enter a new issue and change its status.  General member can 
submit comments into issue.
OT  admin must validate, but anyone can generate/submit issue.  PF concur.
OT  sourceforge may be better, but not know if it is possible to move from 
sourceforge to somewhere else.  Is there any serialization or export?
dd  this was my action item.  No answer yet. Seems that they would have 
some export format, but nothing confirmed as yet.
LH - another consideration  is the rampup or learning curve.  If use the 
XML grammar, need to modify the DTD and XSLT
dd  some people are not technically oriented, and they would have learning 
curve.  With sourceforge, have a web interface.
DH  issues are sent to the mail list and someone else is responsible for 
putting it into the XML document.
dd  the W3C issue tracking software is in beta test - what about that?
DH - It works, would probably fit our needs, but main drawback not 
available yet.  If we want to switch, will need to take issues that are in 
XML document and enter them.
LH  manually or is there a way to import?
OT  think it can be done automatically with XSLT. But there may be some 
manual work needed
LH  no matter what tool, an issues editor/administrator will be needed to 
control the ultimate content.  And take email submissions and enter into 
issue log  may be log it in, give number and link to email. The learning 
curve is more for issues editor, than the general public. Which would make 
better transition  XML grammar or sourceforge?
PF  seems that XML grammar maybe better. We use XML ourselves and know what 
is in it.  The burden is on whoever is doing the editing.  Submitter part 
is easy  just filling out a form
dd  if go XML grammar, we may indirectly end up working with the email and 
not use the issues list.  This is not a major issue; we can solve issues 
via email, although it is difficult to keep track of threads on email.
LH  any difficulty pointing from sourceforge to W3C mail archive
dd  no problem
LH  There doesn't seem to be a strong conviction either way.  Lets take a 
straw poll preference. Choices:  XML grammar, sourceforge, or a hybred, 
like SVG's text file

Result of Straw poll  XML grammar preferred.
LH  Take the first 12 issues and convert them.  Seems that there will be 
less of a learning curve using the XML grammar.  Any volunteers to be the 
Issues Editor?  In lieu of KD (since KD may be interested in being Issues 
Editor)   I will take the initial start, since KD was presently unavailable.
RESOLUTION: Issues tracking will be done using the XML grammar + XSLT
ACTION  LH to initiate issues list via the XML Grammar
dd  Also need to including taking issues from email.

5.  Framework Document
LH, KG, dd  editors, had email exchanges and telcons.
LH-  Summary of editor's discussions: Endorsed the partition of the 
documents as set in last teleconf.  Discussed the boundary of 
documents  what goes in one document vs another document.  The goal was to 
make the partition boundary clear, so that can get busy writing 
text.  There are 7 documents now  4 major documents: Intro, Proc&Ops, Spec, 
and Tech Guideline; with 2 documents for each category (except Intro) - 
a  guideline and checklist document and a techniques/example document. 
Believe we can have 1st WD by week after next teleconf. (week of jan 
7).  At next teleconf, will have revision of first 2 drafts posted on the 
website and make that the major topic of the teleconf.  Wee will take those 
changes and revise documents and then put documents into TR space.  dd has 
created a discussion draft  to record a refinement of the definitions of 
the parts of the Framework Doc Family.  Parts of this will also go into the 
Intro Framework  which will contain a roadmap of the Doc Family.

dd  present discussion of draft.  Under Proc&Ops, too much weight is on the 
QA WG/IG  we need to discuss how people from the QA can work with the WG 
and IG of other W3C.    The Intro is a short description of activity, 
charters, brief roadmap to QA activity and deliverables.  The Proc&Ops 
there already is a detail discussion of WG and IG and how QA fits into W3C 
in general.  It is also appropriate to discuss how to initiate contact with 
other chairs of WG and how the QA members can work within their respective 
WGs.
LH  in the toc, there is a placeholder for WG relationships.  Is this 
something that should be refined further and put into document before 1st 
Work Draft?
dd  good idea to state what it is we want to do and the type of 
relationship we would like to see. As a WD, it will be discussed within the 
various WGs.
LH  The advantage of taking a stab with liaisons or representation within 
the WG, is that it is out a month before the tech plenary and can be 
discussed there.
KG  we need to keep track of issues (on the issues list) as more activities 
originate within the WGs.  Need to present the list of questions that we 
need to still decide.  State it such that the WGs can tell us how they want 
to interact with us.
dd  the fact is that we want relationships with other groups, is not 
necessary in other groups charters. How much representation do they want to 
see? Need to ask chairs to comment on this section  which asks how do they 
want to cooperate with us, rather than say outright how we want them to 
cooperate with us.
LH  Lets have a discussion of this section via email, before putting it 
directly into the document.  Circulate in pieces and ask for comments.
dd  if distribute in fragments or pieces, we may want to have links to 
other parts, which explain what all this is about.
LH  lets agree on text internally in the next three weeks, before sending 
to the chairs. ACTION   further flush out section 2.6  WG relationship to 
QA Activity and activities.
KG  Can start drafting after Dec 26.  Should this circulate on IG list or 
chairs?
LH - Not to chairs yet.  Lets agree within QAWG first, before circulating 
to Chairs.
LH  any more discussion of dd's draft?  dd will you refine the 
document?  Propose that document go forward sooner than later, since chunks 
of it will be put into the Intro.
dd yes.  Will refine based on other documents.  Will spend some time on 
Proc&Ops.  By Sunday, should have an email
LH  anyone else interested in getting involved in this or other areas? 
Contributions are welcome to help get a draft that will be discussed at the 
next teleconf
LH - for next teleconf, we will generate issues and go through the document 
on an issue by issue basis
dd  I'll start making one liners and enumerate issues.
LH  lets also go forward with drafting. Will try to organize the work such 
that there is a list of contentious places that we want to discuss.

Adjourn
25 past the hour.