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

Re: new draft "Framework: Introduction"

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:32:47 +0100
Message-Id: <200201251332.g0PDWlu28213@zidane.inria.fr>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

My comments on the Intro doc.

First, a spell check is needed, including on words like principal
instead of principles.

>     4. "QA Framework: Technical Guidelines" -- detailed technical
>        guidelines for test materials, i.e., for building test suites (TS)
>        and test tools themselves

I'd like to see another name for this one.

Technical Guidelines is going to be easily confused with the
Techniques documents for Checkpoint/Guidelines that we're going to use 
in the Process/Op and Spec guidelines.

In fact, I'm not even sure we're going to use the same prioritized
checkpoint approach for this fourth piece, it's probably going to be a 
resource oriented document, so I propose we call it "Tools Resources".
In even more fact, I wonder if this should be counted as part of the
framework, see more below.

>    The individual conformance test materials efforts of the Working
>    Groups have in several cases been inspired and on target, in others
>    have been perfunctory or rudimentary

My "shakespeare english alarm" went on for the word perfunctory :-)
(i.e. if I need to look in the dictionary for a word, it probably
means half of the audience will have to)

>    Nor do quality
>    practices comprise a mandate imposed on the Working Groups from
>    without, notwithstanding that higher expectations are evolving for the
>    Working Group QA deliverables and for the quality of the products of
>    the WGs in general.

same alarm, but not on isolate vocabulary, just on sentence you have
to read three times to understand
>    More specific goals include:
>      * to encourage the employment of quality practices in the
>        development of the specifications from their inception through
>        their deployment;
>      * to foster a common look-and-feel for test suites, validation
>        tools, harnesses, and results reporting;
>      * to encourage development and use of a common, shared set of tools
>        and methods for building test materials.

I'd put the second point last.

> 2. QA resources
>    A variety of resources are provided by the QA Activity, including:
>      * common QA Glossary [59][QA-GLOSSARY];
>      * QA Taxonomy description [60][TAXONOMY];
>      * "The Matrix" [61][MATRIX], which is a definitive survey of
>        existing QA practice;
>      * Notes (white papers) on QA-related topics;
>      * this QA Framework document family;
>      * the Issues List of the QA WG [62][ISSUES-LIST];
>      * expertise and consultancy;
>      * technical assets.

I'd put those two first 
   * "The Matrix" [61][MATRIX], which is a definitive survey of
        existing QA practice;
   * this QA Framework document family;

I wonder in which way 
   * technical assets.

>   2.2 Technical assets
>    While the initial resources that the QA Working Group offers to other
>    WGs focuses heavily on the Framework documents and available
>    consulting expertise, it is intended that ongoing development within
>    QA Activity will result in a collection of commonly useful technical
>    assets. Some anticipated offerings include:
>      * XML-based test case description languages (TCDL) that can be
>        applied or adapted to diverse test suite projects.
>      * Scripts and transformation stylesheets to generate commonly needed
>        TS materials, harnesses, and documents from TCDLs.
>      * Grammars and methods for granular construction of specifications,
>        as well as tools and methods for management of testable assertions
>        and even (in some cases) automatic generation of tests.
>      * Templates for setting up project TS process documents, ../Test Web
>        sites, and other conformance project logistics.
>      * Standardized and routine procedures (including forms and scripts)
>        for WGs to manage the process of (external) test case submission,
>        review, and integration.
>      * Results reporting languages (e.g., EARL), plus methodologies and
>        specific tools for working with them.

is different from the planned 4th framework piece on tools ?

>   3.2 Document orientation & structure
>    The Framework documents will utilize the style of guidelines and
>    verifiable checkpoints, 

I'd say "structuring guidelines and verifiable checkpoints, so people
don't think guidelines are also verifiables.

>      * and, for each of the Framework's guideline documents, having an
>        associated "Examples & Techniques" document.

"accompanying techniques" is the usual wording in WAI
>      * "QA Framework: Technical Guidelines"
>           + "Technical Techniques and Examples"

"Technical Techniques" sounds really weird.
One more reason I think to consider this part as a simple resource
listing maintained off the Framework track.
>    This document family, which will be comprised of two documents, one
>    with principals and guidelines, the other with examples and


>    to existing QA work, serves as a more detailed set of guidelines as
>    far as principal and technical questions are concerned. It should 


>     3.5.5 Technical Guidelines
>    These two documents deal exclusively with questions related to
>      * Tools used to produce conformance test suites
>      * Technologies used in doing so (RDF, XSLT, DTD/Schema etc)
>      * Building or using harnesses for running the TS and generating
>        relevant results
>      * Principles and guidelines for general test suite design, test case
>        content, reporting etc.
>      * Principles and guidelines for issue tracking systems in TS
>        production, matrices of existing, expected and wanted tests and so
>        forth
>      * Generation of more than one language binding, where applicable
>      * Using assertions to produce relevant tests that take into account
>        the particulars of the specific technology tested

As I said, I think this one is very similar to the technical assets
set of resources we're going to maintain.

e.g. WAI has guidelines specs and a Resource directory at

>     4.1.1 For the overall Framework
>    QA is properly an intergral part of the efforts of each Working Group.
>    The QA WG charter succinctly summarizes the point that has been made
>    from the earliest W3C conformance papers (@@link to tbl/dd paper in
>    member space?@@):

I think we should just use the charter pointer, not the member private 

>    As presently scoped, there will be seven documents in the Framework

let's not forget to change that if we decide to drop the 4th set of
docs (tools + technique for tools, which doesn't look relevant btw
since tools are already techniques kind of things)
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 08:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC