Final Minutes of 14-April-2003 Teleconference

QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes (Final)
Monday, 14-April-2003
--
Scribe: Mark Skall

Attendees:

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group


Guest

(DM) David Marston

Regrets:

None

Absent:

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20030414-1 AT will review MathML by 2003-05-02
AI-20030414-2 MS will look at the definition of normative and modify it to 
reflect that it is directly connected to conformance by 2003-04-25
AI-20030414-3 DM (with DH and LH) will re-write the conformance requirement 
and checkpoint for 8.4 by 2003-04-25
KD will report on how the terms “levels”, “profiles”, and “modules” are 
used in W3C by 2003-04-23


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0095.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0190.html

Minutes:

1. Roll call 11am EDT, membership
See above


2. Any Last Call reviews
         - MathML Last Call (2nd Edition)

LH: We need a reviewer for MathML
AT volunteers  due at the closure of the LC review


3. Spec Guidelines

LR: What is normative?  Glossary is informative.  Section 3.1 will be 
rewritten to identify what is normative.  We will not label each section.

LH: Will we keep our definition for normative and informative?

LR: Issues 65 and 108. Definitions for normative and informative are 
contained in Section 4.  They’re more narrowly focused than the ones in the 
UAAG glossary.  Can we reaffirm we like our own definitions?

LH: Should add sentence to definition of normative to say it’s narrowly 
focused.

MS: Should not be called “narrowly focused.”  MS will look at the 
definition of normative and modify it to reflect that it is directly 
connected to conformance.

LH: In Section 3.1 Dom will provide a hyperlink to definitions.

Issue 65 and 108 will be resolved by the rewrite of Section 3.1 and our 
agreement that we will not label all the sections and we will keep our 
definition.


Issue 106  Are checkpoint priorities normative or informative?

DH: They are not normative as of today.

LH: Priority number is not prescriptive about how to conform but how you 
achieve (level) conformance.  It is normative.

DH: It is normative since you need this information to be conformant.

LH: Conformance requirement is clear without knowing whether it is 
normative or not?

MS: Conformance requirements are normative and that’s all you need to 
conform to.

DH: Conformance requirements and priorities are normative.

LR: We need to determine if checkpoint is normative since the priorities 
are attached to the checkpoints.  How can checkpoints be non-normative and 
priorities normative?

DH: Checkpoint is just a title.  Priority is attached to the whole 
checkpoint, not just the title.


Issues 16 and 39  Section 8.4  Consistent handling of discretionary 
choices.  Comments asked that “document the identified policies” be 
clarified and the need to make it simpler.  This checkpoint has a history 
of being rewritten.  It seems to be a difficult concept to describe clearly.

Alternatives:

1. try again and rewrite
2. delete the checkpoint
3. leave as is.

LR: This checkpoint needs to be clarified.  It’s not clear what the 
conformance requirement is.

SM: The key phrase is “identify documented policies”  What do we mean by this?

DM (with Dom and Lofton) will re-write the conformance requirement and 
checkpoint for 8.4 (Action Item)  Date:4/25/03.  They would try to achieve 
a simple clarification that everyone is happy with, and failing that would 
remove the checkpoint.  I.e.:  Draft clarification; review; accept or delete.



PROFILE/MODULE/LEVEL: (30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98)
Some comments suggest that there is not a clear distinction between 
profile/module/level and that these are all ways to define and label a set 
of technical requirements.  Can guidelines 4, 5 and 6 be combined?

LR: Should we combine 4, 5 and 6? Sentiment of e-mail was to leave them 
separate, not to combine them.

DH: Three concepts adds complexity.  Need distinction among them.   Need a 
clear definition.

MS: We need definitions of all of them. However, combining them will make 
it more confusing

DH: Profiles and levels are the same thing.

LH: Disagree.  They are different but levels can be profiles.

DM: Modules is the only DOV that can be stretched.  It is the generic 
one.  The other DOVs are well-defined.

MS: Agree, but how does that help?

DH: Then we should use different term for “modules”  perhaps “subset.”

LR: We need to continue discussion off-line.

MS: We need to first define all three, then give reasons for inclusion.

DH: We need a counter-proposal to combine them into one concept.

LH: The definitions already exist.

DH: The definitions are not very good.

MS  What are the 2 proposals?  One proposal is to define the terms and 
include reasons to use profiles, modules, levels.  Is the other one to 
combine these concepts into one?

DH: We need definitions and outline of what guideline should look like.

KD: I will see how terms are used in W3C.

DH: That is not that not that useful  we can redefine terms.



4. Adjourn at 1205.
****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************

Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 09:27:49 UTC