Draft Minutes of 18-April-2003 Teleconfrence

QA Working Group Teleconference
Friday, 18-April-2003
Scribe: Peter Fawcett

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

Dave Marston

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20030418-1  Loften Henderson    Send Kirill an email about the
	meaning of "Modules as extension points" in Issue 97 so we may 	better
process the issue. due - 2003-04-18.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0128.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: [...replace w/ correct link before


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) telecon schedule next week (LH)

- proposal:  only 1 (Monday normal)
consensus on mail is to only have Monday meeting.

Agreed. Resolved to just have normal Monday Telcon.

- email processing
since we will do this, some issues will need to be dealt
with on email list.

LR - Put date for closure of topics.

LH - Yes but the date shouldn't be before Telcon to discuss issue.
so that there is a chance for discussion.

3.) any Last Call reviews (LH)

- about confidentiality (e.g., CC/PP [1])
Don't send last call reviews to the public lists. There are
are confidentiality issues.

Send to Dom for posting in private space and he will
send you a link for it.

4.) Crete f2f logistics reminder (LR)
Let LR know if your going and what dates.

Register as soon as possible. If your not sure, register
now and cancel later.

Lato Hotel is an option some people are using.
rates reserved threw April.

5.) Spec Guidelines [1] (DH)
- Last Call SpecGL issues [3], groupings [4]

- category/class issues [2a]
GL 2: CATEGORY/CLASS (#8, 11, 46, 48, 61, 73.3, 93, 94, [1])

Lynne made a proposal on mail. Loften has made a replay with a more
refined proposal.

	"1.) Use the term "specification category" in place of 	"categories of
specification" and "categories of objects".  It 	contrasts better with
"class of product".

	2.) Add "specification category" and "class of product" to 	sec.4,
Definitions, and link occurrences in the text of GL2 and its 	CPs.

	3.) Clearly separate and label the subsections of GL2 verbiage 	which
are describing them.  (Note.  It might be problematic to use 	numbered
'h3' subsections here -- both confusing structurally and 	problematic
for XSLT transform).

	4.) Fine tune the wording, and possibly the terms 	themselves in the
lists, to resolve #46 confusions."

All of these are parts of the same proposal.
LR not sure that this will help make it clearer.

DH was thinking that it should be removed all together as the notion of
class of product doesn't help the people reading the specification.

LH knowing what kind of specification your writing helps you to know
what your targeting.

DM XForms is a case where this may help the reader to know the diverse
categories that are being covered.

Need volunteer to write up new text on proposal.

LR will take it if no one else does. But any help would be appreciated,
even if you don't volunteer now. There is a lot to do and LR and DH both
could use the help.
LH has reformatted the issues list to indicate what issues have been
resolved and which ones require work to implement.

Resolved issues require something to be drafted. Closed means it's been
dealt with. Open means that is hasn't even been discussed yet.
If we have even one un resolved issue it will be a bad deal for us.
People can make a big deal about it.

LH will try to extract list of significant editorial tasks from table.
There are some related issues as well.

issue #46

There was a related issue to break out the current list into 3 sub

In theory it seems to be a good idea but it may or may not work.

We will give it a try and see if it works.

issue #93.

These class of products should be findable from the table of contents.

DH - not that necessary.

LH - unless we change the structure of document this would be very odd
and would seem out of place.

If there was a concepts area this class of product stuff and DOV stuff
could go in concepts section and could then have a ToC entry. Otherwise
it doesn't' make sense.

Will revisit with DoV stuff.

issue #48.
extensibility of spec gl.
conformance requirements are non-exhaustive.

LH - need to add verbiage that this is the set that we think are most
common but it is not exhaustive.

LH - this is part of rewriting the whole thing. who ever does this
should also handle this issue.

issue #94.
don't need to add guidelines they are more of a format.

DM agrees.

no one feels that they should be a category.

issue #61
add technical reports.

LR We do need to add something for this class of product.

LH agrees.

Resolve Per DH resolution in the mail.

LH wants part of resolution to include examples in
ex-tech (and don't loose issues moved to ex-tech).

issue #73.
cant identify all cop.
yes we agree but we aren't trying.

LH felt that the writer thought that we might be talking about
products, not class of products.

There seems to be some confusion about what class of product
means and at what level it gets applied.

LH second comment, what does 'it addresses' mean.

DH the wording seems to need clarification.

LH Yes, seems to also be part of the rewording for issue 94.

Resolution is to clarify difference between 'product' and 'class
of product'.

'All' may still be removed. it doesn't gain us anything and
remove all and change 'it addresses' to 'for which it addresses
conformance requirements'.

- miscellaneous batch-of-10 from [2b]

issue 84 and 90 were not clear.
issue 84
grouping guidelines by DoV.

LH Proposes to wait on this one till we do DoV next.

WG Agrees to proposed resolutions unless they require discussion.

issue #86:

look at version that is currently being written for spelling and

Mark will check spelling and grammar with Lynne.

issue #89:
Add language on terminology and how words are used in other documents.

issue #97:
We do not under stand what this is referring to.

Perhaps Kirill can help us on this one. It seems to be related to web
services so he might be able to help us. not resolved as we need

Action Item to Lofton to send note to Kirill. Date: by today.

issue #103:

editorial fix that needs to be drafted. it is not clear what we mean

LH what we should mean is that requirements that derive from your policy
should be discussed here and a conformance section should say that
anything prefaced with the string conformance requirements and set in
such a way is part of the conformance requirements.

Normative text is identified by containing certain key words or by being
styled in a certain way.

The issue is that the commenter thinks that we want these to be

LH thinks what we meant to say was that we define what are such sections
how to find then, not to list them all.

LR what do we mean by conformance policy. -> GL3 type things.

DH Remove second part?

No one disagrees. Rational is clear.
Resolve to remove second part of checkpoint.

Out of time...
Handle last few short issues in mail.
Monday start on DOV group.
Dom wont be there.
Dom send LH to send mail on topics that he doesn't mind missing.
Will discuss Monday topics via mail.

6.) Adjourn

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/
[2a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0033.html
[2b] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0080.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0020.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0037.html

Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 12:53:06 UTC