[DRAFT] 2002-05-30 QA WG Teleconference minutes

QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 30-May-2002
--
Scribe: Karl Dubost

Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(DM) David Marston

Regrets:
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)


Absent:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-2002-05-30-1: KD call Michel Robitaill for phone facilities
AI-2002-05-30-2: DM Generate a document explaining the principles for 
Montreal F2F

Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0051.html

Minutes:

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002May/0046.html


+ Montreal F2F

- Attendance:
	KG not the 1st day
	not coming: JM, DM, LR

- Phone facilities
KD: Explain the room possibilities. The room doesn't have dial-in or 
dial-out possibility. Maybe a long phone cable from an office nearby.
AI: do a call to Michel Robitaille.

- Draft agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002May/0037.html

LH: if we are expecting dial-in people, we will group particular 
issues together to have specific dial-in
no comment on the agenda?

[no comments]

LH: vigorous thread about Testable assertions. dd agreed that he will 
look at the thread and come will a small number of issues about the 
discussion.
We will make sure that it must be done before the F2F. Some of the 
issue seems to be resolved on the list, by people participating.


+ Telconf Agenda about Issues
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002May/0045.html


- Issue 66:  Glossary dated versions

LH: I didn't hear any strong objections to that. Any discussion.

MS: We have a dated version, so we can point on it, until we have a 
process to modify it.

LH: I didn't think to the process. [Lofton gives an example with spec 
guidelines.] Ex: The spec guideline points to the definition in the 
glossary that is not in the TR space. If we change the glossary and 
at the same we can't change also the specs in the TR space, there's a 
possibility of differences between the meant definition and the 
definition of the glossary. How frequently we update the glossary? If 
definitions are contentious, we raise an issue and update it. But 
each version will be dated. Does it answer your question MS?

MS: Yes it answers my questions.

DH: ??? (missed it Dom)

LH: How to devise the dated version scheme.

KD: not only the QA framework is concerned, it's why there's a need 
for a dated version. Because a spec in another group can also point 
on the glossary.

LH: dated version in the WG space.

KD: same kind of dated document than spec or notes.

LH: agreed


- Issue 62 (added previously):  conformance letters/labels

LH: resume of the different proposal. We leave it like that right now.


- #61 [Spec]:  standard terminology for classes of products

LH: how to ensure that the specification use our terminology and 
taxonomy for classes and products.

DM: Taxonomy is complex and depend on the specifications? a process, 
an api, a format.

LH: leave the resolution until the proposal.

DM: how much abstract we want to be? If we want to adopt a general 
consumers/producers point of view or to precise on particular ones: 
So if we go to particular we may need profiles and flavors. Do we 
want to grant a certain level of flavors and invite people to have 
different possibilities if they have particular cases.

LH: SVG have different between Viewers and interpreters. That's the 
same for MathML. We have already take a step in the direction of 
differentiation. Should we go back or go further?

DM: We should ask to www-qa list to see if people think it's good or not.

LH: closed it and wait for comments. Put it online on ML


- #60 [Ops]:  "In the charter," in ckpt statements.

LH: Some of our checkpoints it seems to have only influence on the 
charter and people writing charters and not specs. I propose to leave 
it as it until Kyrill be able to discuss it.

- #69/70 [Spec]:  flavors of conformance (see DM message at [4])
		(clarify DM proposal, not necessarily resolve)

LH: David sent a suggestion in response. not sure to have understood.

DM: See the mail. Can we have strict conformance, not so strict, 
discretionnary conformance, etc. My suggestions: we expose all of 
that to a wider audience.

LH: Dan Connolly was the origin of the discussion: "Flavors are 
ennemy of interoperability". I'm not sure to understand the guideline 
3 or the interpretation of it.

KD: there are two issues: Having flavors of conformance AND the way 
you declare your conformance clause.

LH: experience Sandra? about Guideline 3

SM: Not sure about the precise meaning of the documents

LH: David?

DM: There's a kind of philsophical approach

DH: having a practical approach, looking at the spec who had success 
with the interoperability

Sandra: Flavors is not defined.

LH: I have difficulty to understand. Ask to Mark/Sandra to discuss 
and try to clarify the guideline 3. Other interesting thing about 
your email. We should have a table called dimension of variability.
	Ref to a mail?

DM: (scribe not sure to have understood the principles of dimension)
	The scribe WOULD like an abstract of the variability.

AI: Generate a document explaining the principles for Montreal F2F for DM


+ Licenses for TS

KD: give an overview of this mail
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002May/0047.html


Adjourned

-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---

Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 11:38:33 UTC