- From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:07:48 +0000
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
These are the final minutes for the QAWG telcon, 16 October 2002 -Andrew QA Working Group Teleconference Final Minutes Wednesday, 16-October-2002 -- Scribe: Andrew Thackrah Attendees: (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Regrets: (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun) Absent: (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) Summary of New Action Items: AI-2002-10-16-1: LH to start email discussion about possible presentation material for outreach to other groups. AI-2002-10-16-2: LH to start discussion on IG list of last bit of Issue 19, per-document definitions (supplemental to and starting from QA Glossary definition.) Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0054.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0074.html Preceding F2F Minutes: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/10/f2f-minutes Minutes: 2) Logistical topics ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LH: We have approval for new bridge . We start next Monday, meeting weekly time: 1100 -1230 US Eastern (To be confirmed) Think it's the same bridge info (phone number, password etc). We should aim for 1 hour meetings with the final half hour in reserve for extra work. 3) Tech plenary [1]- any "meet with" requests? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [LH asks if anyone has any special requests to meet with other groups during the Tech. Plenary] LH: Item #1 has a preliminary meeting schedule. We have Thursday/Friday for our meeting. We should think about whether we want to meet with groups face-to-face, pay visits and present something or sit in and see what they are doing. [The are no comments or requests about this] LH: We could make a 15 minute presentation for telcons and outreach use. Continue this discussion on email. [Action: LH to start email discussion about this] 4) QA and new Errata proposal - adopt DM positions? (DM: David Marston) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LH: Original req came out 19 Sep. - I noticed they ask for feedback by 3 Oct. Do they still want comments? I asked for comments from QA perspective. DM has given comments. In GL docs we do address (it) so we should point out QA implications of the err. proposal. KG: We should give comments (if we are not too late). Re. DM's comments about process: communications of issues that would have effect on conformance requirements of a spec. but proposal also had something about breaking changes - LH: That's the definition of substantive. The Err. proposal does a good job of classifying. As DM says - it has a good, careful definition of substantive changes .... KG: That should be of most interest to us LH: This affects whether one can have test cases or not. Groups maintain errata lists - they don't become normative until new doc is published. Tying test to errata levels needs to be looked at more carefully since we are going be tying them to errata levels. Also seems to downplay the barrier to republishing a TR (every 3/6 months?). The review processes are fairly light. Editors with heavy workloads are not going to view this as a small activity - to republish. The errata doc considers carefully implications of what should be normative. It points out that errata, like anything else, must be in /TR/ to be normative. And from that, recommends republication of the whole spec, with approved errata folded in, as the way to finally make them normative. KG: We still need to figure if we can give feedback LH: Assuming that they are still interested - since DM is the only commenter so far - if he's willing to work on it more - we could take it as a QAWG response. KG: I'd like to have input to that. LH: lets say Noon (US Pacific) Friday this week for comments. Any one else want to participate? [No response from others] LH: In that case we'll go ahead with DM's email 5.) A couple of issues: #19 and #99 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LH: There was a request in Tokyo that this be reopened. I want this (#99) to be reopened: It is dependent on issue #19. [summarizes issue] GL docs may have definition in addition to a glossary - but must not contradict it. MS: What are the choices? It's redefining words - are we going for separate glossaries? LH: I called it a definition section so would not be confused with or challenge the QA glossary. Definition should start with reference to glossary and then provide extra qualifications - but not contradict it. MS: So the assumption is that the glossary is not complete - so could we expand a definition in body text of a document? LH: I don't think that works - I myself couldn't find in situ definitions in my own docs. It's hard to remember where all explanations are if they are spread through the body of a doc. MS: Ok. Then could you point to specific examples of why this is needed? LH: Definition of Test Assertion - look back to May, there is discussion about this [ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0000.html ]. This thread shows that e.g. TestGL or SpecGL needs more than a terse definition. LH: So we are talking about a specific type of definition. The glossary definition holds but now we are talking about a specific type? LH: Yes [gives more examples ] SM: Wouldn't that go in the ExTech doc? LH: It's a question again of findability - a definition needs to be to hand in the current doc. KG: There's no way we can keep a glossary during editing of working drafts. until publication most of the useful definitions will be inside the specific docs. Then when complete - we can propagate these definitions back up to the glossary. LH: I think it should be up to editors/working group to add definitions where needed. MS: But what about consistency across documentation? We may end up redefining glossary definitions that we disagree with. Doing this at the end is fine - but let's keep a single definition in one place. LH: We can link from document definition to QA glossary as first step. DH: We could chose a point during the documents life where we synchronize with the glossary. LH: I'm not yet convinced that the glossary is sufficient for GL docs. DH: But eventually it should be KG: I prefer per-document definitions. LH: Can we take discussion on to the IG list? MS: On IG list - let's not use Test Assertion as the working example- too controversial. We need another example. [ Action: LH to start discussion on IG list of last bit of Issue 19, per-document definitions (supplemental to and starting from QA Glossary definition.) ] 6) OpsGL issues #60, #59 [, #32?] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [ Postponed - Moved to Agenda for Monday 21 October 2002 ] 7) SpecGL - editing questions ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DH: I began to redraft a good number of check points - each contains a testable assertion. I deleted a lot of text - some irrelevant, some moved to ExTech. LR: I like the changes MS: I agree. I like the format. How much deleted text will move to ExTech? is it just the yellow blocks? DH: Most deleted material concerns DoV [Degrees of Variability]. I'm trying to simplify this. MS: Check points are irrelevant to determining level of conformance? DH: Yes. MS: We should go through instances of 'Should' and check if they should be 'Must' DH: Agreed, please do LH: Let's do it after publication DH: Even better, yes LH: For Ops. and Spec. we have to verify all keywords. DH: We are unlikely to be using 'May' LH: Dom - how do you feel about reviews of the doc - before or after publication? DH: I'll be away last week of November - so I won't have time to work then. LH: Let's postpone then. Do it on Nov. 6 version at start of next cycle DH: Ok. Red borders mark the most important text for feedback. GL12, ckpt#1 needs review. [DH and LH do some editing] LR: Re minimal support - this is a level. Often have multiple classes of product - It's not clear that a single minimum level applies across all classes. LH: Re. minimal support requirements - E.g. for a graphics generator this is a kind of 'maximum'. so 'minimal' is not necessary a good name. LR: I've seen this in the VRML spec. Levels would take care of it. It's a matter of understanding what a level is. LH: This checkpoint could be made a conditional of previous checkpoint- or an example in ExTech. LR: Are we confusing people by adding this extra caveat? DH: Re. text of GL#3: about non-applicability of profiling. is this useful/true? LH: It's true, but useful? DH: I will remove it. LH: It's easy to get mixed up in DoV - new design should make it easier to avoid this? DH: I Will have a new design by Monday's call LH: The last paragraph re. excessive variability - is this deleted? DH: It can be moved to informative section or a general warning in introduction. LH: It's useful as a 'Should'. And it was put in there to resolve an issue so should stay in somewhere DH: It will be in there - maybe as a generic guideline for DoV. LH: I'll circulate proposals for rewrite of the intro. --- Adjourned --
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 13:08:47 UTC