W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Plan/proposal for DoV group -- Monday

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 10:08:32 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

Comments in line

>Add a new Chapter 2, "Concepts", which might look like this:
>2. Concepts
>2.1 Two kinds of guidelines
>[Restore lost bits from end of 1.7 in 20021108 version,
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20021108/ ,
>which said...]
>"The guidelines are of two general types:
>     * those that deal solely with the document features and conventions 
> of the specification — GL1 and GL10 - GL14;
>     * those that, in addition to documentation aspects, deal with how 
> specifications should establish and define the conformance policy for the 
> specification's technology, including ways in which the technology may be 
> subdivided for conformance purposes — GL2 - GL9."

This is in the current document, Section 1.5, Understanding and using this 

>2.2 Dimensions of variability (DoV)
>[Move current 1.8 to here,

Yes.  The current text may benefit from some rewriting to improve its 
clarity and understandability.

>2.3 Specification category and class of product
>[To be discussed -- Per 20030418 telecon, it may be that we want to put 
>the fully fleshed-out and improved discussion of SP and CoP in here, in 
>their own subsections, with anchors on the two lists.  I think it is a 
>good idea, as there were several comments about confusion about these 

Yes.  The information is getting lost in G2.  This would also ensure a 
listing in the ToC, which will help in finding this information.

>2.4 Profiles, Modules, Levels
>[To be discussed (later, when we resume the prof/mod/lev issue?) -- It may 
>be that we want to put a full discussion of profiles, modules, levels in 
>here, with anchors on the two lists.  I think it is a good idea, as there 
>were several comments about confusion about these concepts, "having 
>trouble seeing a sharp distinction".  I don't think a clear picture of the 
>concepts can necessarily be developed with very terse text, for reasons 
>that I'll explain later.  We could take the time and space to do it here, 
>perhaps recovering some discussion and verbiage that was in earlier 
>drafts, but that has been dropped.]

Yes. Having it all in one place may make the differences and similarities 
clearer.  Also, as was suggested a diagram (if we can compose one) would be 

>2.X (Sections for other DoV?  Or are they simple enough?)
>[ To be discussed --
>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x77 ,
>seem to suggest that GL2, and 4/5/6 are the ones that need attention.  So 
>maybe no additional 2.x sections are needed?]

I'm not sure what you are thinking here.  I think this may be covered by 
the above proposed sections.

>2.Y Addressing relationships among DoV used
>[There is confusion about "address the interrelationships...":
>Here would be an opportunity to discuss the concept in general, perhaps 
>with a generalized or generic version of:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0121.html .
>This discussion could then be back-linked from each of the relevant CP, 
>which would then only add its own specialization to the discussion.]

Good idea to address this.  I know that I am also confused about the 
"address the interrelationships..." and what is needed to satisfy these 

>GL2 Identify what needs to conform and how.
>[To be discussed -- the idea to move the detailed verbiage into "Concepts" 
>(see above), and have abbreviated discussion here, heavy on links and 
>GL4/5/6 Profiles/modules/levels
>[To be discussed -- the idea to move the detailed verbiage sections into 
>"Concepts" (see above), and have abbreviated discussion in the GLs' 
>verbiage, heavy on links and references.]
>[Add a caveat back in.  For each DoV, we used to have a statement like the 
>last paragraph of the verbiage at GL3 profiles:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#b2b3b3d239 ]

If we agree to have the caveat,  put it in the Concepts section and not in 
each GL.   My concern is that dividing the technology is a good thing and 
the caveat (although it says 'Excessive variability fragments') may give 
the wrong impression.  Do others read it, as it was intended?

>CP2.4, 4.3, 5.2, 6.1, 7.3, 8.5, 9.7
>[The "DoV relationship" CPs.  Their discussion/rationale would back-link 
>to 2.Y, and maybe add some specialized discussion.]
>This is solved by 2.Y above (and CP2.4, 4.3, 5.2, 6.1, 7.3, 8.5, 9.7).
>This is not solved by the PROPOSAL (yet), but the above email proposal has 
>gotten no negative comments and apparently stands.  To be discussed -- its 
>explanation could be put somewhere in new Ch.2 (e.g., in prof/mod/lev, if 
>such a subsection is approved).

Perhaps the explanation could be put in ExTech as an example of what we 
don't mean.

>The PROPOSAL does not address consolidating the DoV guidelines, 
>GL2-9.  IMO, the only real possibility here, within reach for SpecGL 1.0, 
>is the prof/mod/lev topic:  can those concepts be consolidated? or if 
>concepts are kept separate, at least can the 7 checkpoints (4+2+1) at 
>least be put under a single GL?
>Resolving that latter question must wait for the prof/mod/lev discussion 
>(4/25?).  But on Monday we could endorse the idea (or NOT!) that that's 
>the only potential opportunity for consolidation.
>This would be resolved by the GL2-9 ("Add a caveat back in...") 
>comment.  Note the use of "a" -- it doesn't have to be exactly the old 
>one, if someone has better words.
>Solved by the PROPOSAL, I think.  The DoV are given prominence in Chapter 
>2, and would show up in the TOC.  Ch.2 would link to the individual DoV, 
>and vice-versa.  The DoV GLs and the Document GLs are not segregated into 
>separate chapters (which would be the ultimate restructuring).  But IMO 
>that is not needed.
>Solved by the PROPOSAL.  The DoV are given prominence in Chapter 2, and 
>would show up in the TOC.  Ch.2 would link to the individual DoV, and 
>NOT SOLVED YET.  If we agree that Conformance Policy is a DoV, then we 
>need some verbiage.  I guess in GL3 would work, or another subsection in 
>Ch.2.  To be discussed, 3 questions -- is it a DoV?  verbiage to answer 
>originators question? if so, where to put it?

I think the comment as merit.  Why is the Conformance Policy a DoV?  It is 
a consequence of the other DoVs -- "It is important to convey an 
understanding of what is meant by conformance and how it applies to each 
class of product as well as each dimension of variability (e.g., modules) 
if applicable."
Hmm.  This should really say, "each other dimension of variability, since 
CoP is a DoV.     Also, taking this literally, then the Conformance Policy 
needs to be applied to itself, since the Conformance Policy it a DoV

>Resolved by 2.3, 2.4, and 2.Y.
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2003 10:09:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:33 UTC