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

Draft minutes of April 21 teleconference

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:35:47 -0700
Message-ID: <3EAC14F3.6090200@sun.com>
To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 21 April 2003

Scribe: Patrick Curran

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)        
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)    
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)        
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)    
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)            

(DM) David Marston                
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)        
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)        
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)        
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)        
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)        

No new Action Items were assigned

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0167.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) future telecons proposal
        - one this week
        - two next week (wk. of 4/28)
        - one following week

LH proposes SpecGL for the first meeting next week, OPsGL for the 2nd.

3.) Spec Guidelines [1]
        - Last Call SpecGL issues [3], groupings [4]
        - issue #67 [5]
        - DoV group (21, 66, ... 77.SG-1) from [4] [2]
        - Applicability/Normative exclusion (26, .., 80) from [4]
        - Extensibility group (15, 29.5, .., 101..) from [4]

Discussion of Last Call issue 67. LH proposes postoponing discussion of 
1st part of this issue.
On 2nd portion - LH suggests a W3C Note - produced by us in 
collaboration with comm.
PC: why is this a problem?
LR: what's the real issue? Is it questioning our use of these terms, or 
is the submitter
requesting further elaboration.
LR: in checkpoint 13.1 (where we say you must use the RFC 2119 keywords) 
suggests add
wording from ExTech document saying guidance is given for correct usage 
in the memo, and
link to it.
LH: in the response, we will also suggest the creation of a Note.

Discussion of LH's DOV proposal [note 2]
LH proposes a concepts chapter (chapter 2) in which we would clarify 
some of the issues
around DOVs.
DM and LR agree that such a restructuring would help.
LR: many comments we've received are about concepts/terms that we have 
invented. We
should explain them.
LH: walks us through the proposed structure. Explanations of those DOVs 
that have
caused confusion and raised issues will be provided here. Consensus: no 
need to
explain those for which we have no issues.
This will be followed by a section on relationships between DOV
Discussion of the extent to which we should warn against DOV.
LR: dividing the technology is a good thing, so don't over-warn.
LH: having a discussion in this section, saying here are the benefits 
and the risks;
each individual DOV can then point to this.
Discussion of how individual Last Call issues are addressed by Lofton's 

LC 95: is conformance policy a DOV? Agreed to discuss in email (this is 
the only DOV
Last Call issue still open)

LH: proposes we start next week's conference with discussion profiles, 
modules, levels,
and that we discuss this topic via email in advance.

4.) Adjourn

5.) Overflow (12-12:30): available.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0158.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0105.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0153.html
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2003 23:07:55 UTC

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