[DRAFT] Minutes from QAWG Telcon 2003/04/07

 [DRAFT]
 QA Working Group Teleconference
 Monday, 07-April-2003 at 1100 EDT
 --
 Scribe: Andrew

 Attendees:
 (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
 (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
 (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
 (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
 (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
 (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
 (DM) David Marston (IBM)
 (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
 (AT) Andrew Thackrah (The Open Group)

 Regrets:
 (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
 (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
 (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)


 Summary of New Action Items:
 AI-YYYYMMDD-N   Who              What    [DEADLINE]
 AI-20030407-1   PC & PF          Provide TestGL publication timeline [09 Apr]
 AI-20030407-2   LR               Draft a sentence for checkpoint 1.4 to reflect Ian's issue 23. [14 Apr]
 AI-20030407-3   LH               Record a new issue on removing checkpoint 1.3 [Apr 14]

 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0034.html

 Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0015.html


 1. Roll call
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

 (see attendees above)


 2. Call for two LC reveiwers. One for DOM Events and one for OWL.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 LH volunteers for DOM events

 KD volunteers for OWL.

 Due date for DOM events may be May 02. Due date for OWL may be May 09. These
 dates are uncertained and should be confirmed.


 3. TestGL publication plan
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 PC Explains that he hasn't had a chance to discuss the work with PF and so there
 is not much to report at present.

 PF explains that he must discuss the work with DH first. PC to provide materials to
 PF by Thursday 10 Apr.

 Action Item for PC & PF [due Wed. 9 April] to provide WG with a timeline for publication.

 LH - This (TestGL) is only our 2nd WD so we don't need to do too much internal reviewing

 LH - reminder - we have an extra telcon this Thursday on a different bridge. I'll send an
      email with the call details.


 4. Spec Guidelines
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Resolution of Issues, led by LR

 Issue 38:  merger of checkpoints 9.1 and 9.2

 PC - I'm in favour of combining because we have too many checkpoints already.
 KD - I'm also in favour - 9.1 includes 9.2 so they should be combined
 PF - Agreed

 [No objections to combining 9.1 and 9.2]

 LH - Who is responsible for disposal of comments etc? I'll edit the issues.
   e.g. on editorial issues. we need to say what precise change we are making
   in the response document.
   So send me a pointer to the new text when you make an edit.

 Issue 23:

 DM - I like the idea of Alt 1- but it's a big workload
 LR - If we provide more specific examples per category then it becomes a problem if we
      leave out a category
 AT - We should avoid complexity. I prefer Alt. 2
 KD - I think we should have a more stringent definition - prefer Alt. 3.

 LH - I propose a variation on Alt 2 - acknowlegde this discussion in the checkpoint
      and refer to ExTech?
 LR - But ExTech is refered to automatically
 LH - Anyway its useful to acknowlegde in discussion, and give a brief e.g. - currently
      a reader really has to go to ExTech to make any sense of specGL. SpecGL needs to
      stand on its own better.

 Action Item:  LR to draft a sentence for checkpoint 1.4 to reflect Ian's issue 23.  Due April 14

 Issue 92: difference between checkpoints 1.2 and 1.4

 DM - If a second doc. meets 1.2 on behalf of another doc. - then what? Do examples
  have to be in the same doc. or can they be elsewhere?

 LR - This question comes up in several issues - my feeling is yes they can be in another document

 KD - I think we decided earlier that there is no requirement to 'include'. A Link is ok. e.g. we are
  doing it ourselves in extech!

 LR - So we need an editorial change of 'include' to 'provide'

 LH - Maybe rephrase the checkpoints 'illustrate scope' and 'illustrate functional details'

 LH - We also need to clarify the text


 Issue 75.1: Reorder checkpoints 1.3 and 1.4 in priority order.

 DM - A logical order is that compelling usage scenarios come first, associated usage scenarios follow,
      then scoping, then final usage scenarios to get a sense of scope -this is done at launch time
      for benefit of the WG

 LR - Do we actually need both checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3?

 Action Item:  LH to record an new issue on removing checkpoint 1.3 due April 14.

 LH - I think the section should have a logical flow - not always priority ordering

 KD - If it doesn't change the logic then we should order by priority.

 LH - The checklist does provide this ordering

 LR - This now depends on the resolution of whether we keep checkpoint 1.3 - so let's leave it for now.

 LR - We may want to renumber checkpoints as 1.2, 1.4, 1.3

 LH - Agreed, let's wait until other related issues are solved

 KD - Might be better to have a decision now for expediency.

 [No objections to recording issue and moving on]


 Issue 79: SpecGL fails its own checkpoints 1.2 and 13 - no examples or usage scenarios

 LH - We need a volunteer to add examples and usage scenarios.
      The volunteer should look at QA-Frame-Into - there are usage scenarios here (sort of).
      This might stimulate some ideas.

 LR volunteers to provide material to satisfy checkpoint 1.2

 KD - BTW ExTech is going ok. We are waiting for SpecGL to stabilise

 Section numbering issues 63, 91, 77.ET-3:

 LR - Should editors come up with a consistent scheme?

 LH - The numbering scheme isn't a problem for me. I think there is another related comment
      about this. Need to look out for it before drawing up our reasons for rejection.

  [general agreement to reject the call for different numbering scheme]


  Adjourned 1200 EDT.

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 18:56:29 UTC