Final Minutes of QA WG Teleconference 2003/04/07

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

  (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
  (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
  (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
  (DH) Dominique HazaŽl-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)

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

  Summary of New Action Items:
  AI-YYYYMMDD-N   Who       What    [Due Date]
  AI-20030407-1   LH        Review DOM Events spec. against SpecGL. [May 
  AI-20030407-2   KD        Review OWL spec. against SpecGL. [May 01]
  AI-20030407-3   PC & PF   Provide TestGL publication timeline [09 Apr]
  AI-20030407-4   LR        Draft a sentence for checkpoint 1.4 to reflect 
Ian's issue 23. [14 Apr]
  AI-20030407-5   LH        Record a new issue on removing checkpoint 1.3 
[Apr 14]


  Previous Telcon Minutes:

  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 is May 01. These
  dates are uncertained and should be confirmed.

  AI: LH to review DOM Events spec. against SpecGL. Due May 02
   AI: KD to review OWL spec. against SpecGL. Due May 01
    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 
  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 
    e.g. on editorial issues. we need to say what precise change we are 
    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 
       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 Wednesday, 23 April 2003 10:11:58 UTC