W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Draft Minutes of 9-December-2002 Telcon

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:59:00 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 9-December-2002
Scribe: Mark Skall


(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)


(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(JR) John Robert Gardner (Sun)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)


(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-2002-1209-1 KG will provide detailed map for location of FTF meeting in 
AI-2002-1209-2 LH will assign to someone to produce the slide show 
(briefing package) to present the QAWG work to different working groups and 
to technical plenary.
AI-2002-1209-3 MS will send e-mail about opening an issue to revisit the 
second point in the conformance disclaimer to see if it should be reworded 
or eliminated.
AI-2002-1209-4 KG will add a definition for “test framework” to the local 
glossary of TestGL.
AI-2002-1209-5 LR will work on re-writing the language of TestGL to make 
sure the spelling and grammar are correct.
AI-2002-1209-6 LH will check for pub rule compliance.  KD will help.
AI-2002-1209-7 LR will open the issue on the topic of test suite 
checkpoints being needed at 2 different stages of rec development.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Dec/0052.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 


1. Roll call 11am (ET), membership
See above

2. Logistical topics

- Seattle f2f [0]

DD: Uncertain about being in Seattle
LH: What are preference for hotels in Seattle
KD: W3C team will stay at private place
MS: NIST team will stay at Marriot Residence Inn.
KG: Will provide detailed map for location of meeting

3. Two Action Item problems

- Need owner for AI-20021008-06

Was assigned to Dimitris but Dimitris only agreed to help out; there was no 
discussion about taking the lead.  The goal is outreach to WGs and a 
briefing package for tech plenary.  To accomplish this, we need a draft of 
a slide show (15 minute) to use in a telcon or FTF for a Working Group to 
present the work we’re doing and to make a sales case how it would help the 
Working Group. The slide show should also address what we’d like from the 
Working Group (QA liaison to us, etc.)
LH will assign to someone to this action item.

         - Volunteer to assume AI-20021008-10?

Dimitris would like someone take this action item of developing a summary 
report for the document technology survey.  We promised the survey 
participants that we would summarize and distribute result.  No volunteers; 
Dimitris will continue to be responsible for this action item.

4. Test Guidelines

         - Issue processing for the TestGL

A. Are the Priorities definition in the Introduction acceptable for
the First Public Working Draft (FPWD)?

MS:  What is the difference between Priorities 2 and 3?
KG:  Priority 1 is “must”; Priority 2 is “should”.
LH:  Should use same priority keywords as in OpsGL and SpecGL.
LH:  The priority 1 statement is in violation of the second point in the 
conformance disclaimer.
MS:  I don’t agree with second point of the conformance disclaimer.
MS:  The two may not be contradictory.
A vote was taken to decide whether or not to it was necessary to change the 
wording of the TestGL priority 1 statement to make it compatible with the 
second point of the conformance disclaimer, for the time being. We will 
decide later if we want to change the second point of the conformance 

Vote to change the TestGL priority 1 statement:
DD: Change
KD: Change
KG) Abstain
DH: Abstain
LH: Change
LR: Change
MS: Keep the same
Consensus: We will change the wording of priority 1.

MS will send an e-mail about opening an issue for the second point in the 

B. Are the definitions in the local Glossary acceptable?

LH: Add definition for test framework
Kirill will add definition for “test framework”.
LH: Change section title to “definitions”.

C. Are Checkpoints 1.5 - 1.9 in sync with the specification Guidelines?

LR: Checkpoint 1.5. Should be priority 2.
Ex-Tech items are flagged as such, but will migrate into Ex-Tech document 
in the future.
Priorities have not been reviewed yet
Nothing else needs to be changed for FPWD.

D. Is the Guideline 2 clear? Do checkpoints 2.1 and 2.2 verify the quality
of the test suite structure?

MS: For Checkpoint 2.1 - Should be “non-exhaustive” list.

E. Is the intent of Guideline 3 clear? Is definition of the testing
methodology term clear? Was the rewording of the checkpoints

KG:  Reworded to make it more strategic rather than tactical.
MS:  Guideline 3 should say “non-exhaustive”, rather than partial.
MS:  Add the fact that Guideline 3 is informative.
LR:  Need another checkpoint to distinguish between different stages of 
draft (candidate rec v. rec).  One would build different things depending 
on the stage of the draft.  The focus on the test suite for CR is to 
improve rec.  The focus on the test suite for rec is to improve 
MS:  How would you do this with a checkpoint?
MS:  Aren’t we asking tester to provide information twice? One for CR stage 
and one for rec stage?
LR:  Yes.
LR will open issue on this topic.
LH:  Need a volunteer to work on language for TestGL.
LR will work on language.
KR:  Do we scare test suite implementers?
LR:  Don’t know; intro will help.
MS:  Will still scare implementers; we describe “how” to do something 
rather than “what” in too many places.
LH:  Agree.  We need to clarify.
KR:  We state strategy in introduction, but we will add clarification.
LH:  Will check for pub rule compliance.  KD will help.

Adjourn at 1207.

Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 10:06:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:32 UTC