Final Minutes of 18-April-2003

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  Lofton Henderson    Send Kirill an email about the
meaning of
	"Modules as extension points" in Issue 97 so we may better process the
	due - 2003-04-18.

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 (via or Cc: 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. Lofton 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

		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

		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.

	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.

		DH 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 			extech). specifically,
the list of examples from 			Dom's email comments.
		Resolution also includes adding category for
	issue 73.3
		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

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

- 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.
		agree to proposed resolutions unless they require 		discussion.

	issue 86:
		look at version that is currently being written for 		spelling and
		Mark will look at it with Lynne.

		Add language on terminology and how words are used in 		other

		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 clarification.

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

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

		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


Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 12:58:36 UTC