- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:47:56 +0100
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Attached, please find the minutes. Best, /Dimitris --- QA Working Group Teleconference Thursday, 14-March-2002 -- Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis (dd) Attendees: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (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) (CK) Colleen Kelly (Microsoft) Regrets: (DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair) (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun) Absent: (KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Summary of New Action Items: No new action items Previous Telcon Minutes: Not published yet (20020314) Minutes: Agenda: 1.) Roll call 2.) Any WG web site/logistical topics 3.) UAAG test suite discussion LH wrote the agenda just after the mail exchange between Gundersen, Jacobs, Dardallier and Henderson. Asked for topic for discussion with QA WG. Resolution: some of the QA WG join a UAAG call. They will not be on today's telcon. Who might be interested? Interesting from specification perspective (intricate performance requirements), test material provides interesting technical problems. Potentially interested: Dimitris Dimitriadis, Lofton Henderson, Kirill Gavrylyuk, Karl Dubost 4.) Framework document schedule LH: We aimed at publishing in TR around April 1, progress is a bit slower, Editors propose another WG cycle before publication in the first week of April, target 2-3 weeks after that for TR publication. dd: proposes that commentability is enhanced LH: some discussion around that. open to suggestion on how to get more lively discussion - new parts and their progression LR: Spec guidelines the draft is a preliminary start for what the document will be. describes parts in detail (scribe's phone gave up here). by identifying information in the spec, you enhance traceability of tests as well as automatically generating tests. Lynne sketched checkpoints and guidelines, dimitris concentrated on spec granularity and what that makes possible. LH: guildeines 4-9 will break down into more guidelines LR: anatomy breaks down into more guidelines as well LH: intra-ed drafs will have fleshed out parts of the new document versions dd: (2b Process&Operations-exTech) first part gives an account of existing test suites, second part monitors checkpoints and guidelines (in 2a) and investigates how much has been implemented, and gives one example per implementation if it exists - next publication date 5.) Continued issue#55 processing (per [1]) LH: checkpoints in operational guidelines one by one. the issues list won't be rady until this afternoon. issue 55 says look at the checkpoints snd confirm their priorities. We should be looking at the 3/11 doc, not the 2/25 one. We have gotten up to chkpoint 4.2 How do we want to handle the dialogue about chkpoint 1.1 raised by Mark? MS: summary first issue: wording on test suites. you always want to make sure that you ask for something which is reviewed, we want to move up the aspect of reviewing the TS in the table. second point: test assertions, only mentioned in level 6 presently. ms: we cannot mention test suites without test assertions. we mention test suites in level 2 (preliminary) in the more complete point (4) we should mention test assertions. concerned that test assertions are done. the issue is not if the assertions are part of the specification. point: if a test suite, not necessarily complete, exists, so should test assertions. associated issue: we talk about having prio 1 as a commitment to level 3 in the table, nothing else is said about the rest of the table, in that case the table should not be published. dd: stresses that improved specification authoring will expose test assertions and failing to meet them. KG: proposal: agree about test assertions at level 2 (wg should produce at least a subset of assertions). levels 5 and 6 should be swapped. do not agree with the comment about review. reviews is essentially not done by WG, but after tests are run. dd: tests need to be reviewed by the WG, if it's a deliverable. KG: we don't say that the WG has tests as a deliverable, only to have a TS as a deliverable. dd: WG needs to at least put a "stamp of approval" by the WG MS: agrees. asking for a deliverable implies reviewing quality (also in the TS case) LR: Wg makes sure that there is a QA review on the TS, whether they do it or delegate it to others. when done, they accept the deliverable (the TS) KD: if someone accepts to do the review externally, how can we assess the quality of the work? [jack joined the call] KG: what should the wording be? we need some wording that ensures that the TS is reviewed (externally/internally) and that the TS review process is of good quality LH: had a reply to the test assertions thread. we need to be careful about overly general statements. svg suite is diagnostic suite, not checking (regarded as good, but does not contain list of things to test). we need to be careful about what we mean with test assertions. MS: go from spec to test assertion, then to test suite, don't go directly to TS LR: test issues will be adressed in the fourth document MS: you should be able to trace tests against assertions LH: there is a wide spctrum of improvements to be made, but it is not easy to see how this can be done MS: do we want to think about the issue about having a table which requires level 3, wihtout saying anything about the rest of the table? KG: agrees LH: we should have some convergence and take it off-line for the time being (mail) LH: chkpoint 4.2 is where we were last time. 4.2 listed as a prio 1 chkpoint. previoulsy 4.1 was prio one and was changed to prio 2 4.2 - produce a qa document is listed as prio 1. it stays prio 1 (no objections) 4.3 - in the qa process doc, define the means of qa related communication. is this a necessary part of satsfying 4.2? KG: no LH: issue 56, you have to have objective test critera, what is the objective criterion for 4.2? in the 2b doc, you could give examples, if they exist, but what if they do not? what interpretation of the 2a chkpoint do you give? LH: are 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 lower prios? 4.3: MS: propose that having a qa moderator is necessary KG: should qa moderator be prio 1 and qa task force be prio 2? MS: yes agreed LH: 4.4 KG: reason for prio 2 is that the framework (how to develop docs and use the tests) may not be needed. perhaps wrong, should it be prio 1? ALL: yes KG: 4.5 specifying policy for branding materials. prio 3. keeps 3 but strike out "if applicable" RESOLUTION: keep prio 3 and remove "if applicable" gdline 5, ensure that ts is documented and reusable. LR: remove the "accredited third party" phrasing MS: you don't necessarily need third party certification, if someone wants third party crediation, what's the prob? LR: get rid of accredited 3rd party KG: agree, keep reusable LR: then I see it as a prio 1 KG: ok, let's raise it to prio 1 LH: extra telcon: three absents, lh, dd, jc if we go for next thursday. when should we have the extra telcon? agreed to have the extra telcon normal time next thursday 6.) Adjourn adjourned 3 minutes past scheduled time
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 16:47:58 UTC