Draft Minutes of W3C QAWG telecon Monday August 18, 2003

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 18-August-2003
--
Scribe: Lynne Rosenthal

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)
  (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
  (VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)

Regrets:
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

Absent:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
[Format:
AI-20030818-1   KD to review XHTML-Print, Sept 7
AI-20030818-2:  DH to draft text for TestGL on close relation to other 
specs  Sept 15

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0053.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0035.html


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) Routine Business
- XHTML Print Last Call Review (7-sep):  Karl.

3.) Status of OpsGL transition to CR
The 2 week period for commenters to reply on QAWG's disposition of their 
comments closed today. All accepted our dispositions, except 1 (Jon 
Gunderson). Proposed way forward 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0052.html, Part 1). 
LH proposed to go forward even though we have one remaining negative. 
Unanimous in favor of moving forward and requesting CR transition as per 
Part 1 proposal. KD will work with LH to draft letter requesting CR. LH 
plans to seek permission to publish document under old-Pub Rules.
4.) TestGL topics
Publish next version  Sept 20.

Overlap between OpsGL and TestGL
It is difficult to determine the boundaries between these documents.  OpsGL 
talking about organizational and planning processes, whereas TestGL focus 
on implementation, test development and execution.  OpsGL GL5 (plan test 
material development) overlaps with what TestGL should talk about.  Another 
overlap in TestGL GL7 (planning for conformance testing).   For now, keep 
CP5.4  in Ops so not lost and during CR period discuss moving it to 
TestGL.  Need to document in the section on relationship to other family 
documents, the close relationship between the documents (DH to draft 
text).   There is a close relationship and need to draft text to reflect 
this. CP5.1 from OpsGL should migrate into TestGL.   Recommendation: if it 
fits in TestGL, continue to develop it there. And enter comments during the 
OpsGL CR comment period.

Review of Guidelines:
Overview of the guidelines: Analyze spec and determine strategy, Test 
Assertions, how to manage, how to execute, document, report, and plan for 
testing. Removed ‘test framework’ since this caused much confusion.   All 
agreed that this was a good set of guidelines.
GL2 divides metadata into that which is essential and additional 
metadata.  CP2.2 “…assertion is ambiguous, contradictory, incomplete, 
untestable…” is here since the spec may contain bad requirements and this 
identifies/points it out.  Suggest changing wording to where the assertions 
identifies ambiguous, contradictory… requirements in the spec.
Assumption is that separate from the spec is a list of assertions and that 
these assertions need to be tied back to the spec.- where they come from, 
i.e., traceability.
CP3.2  there is a set of metadata to be associated with each test. The 
problem is when tests are automatically generated and test assertions are 
not created. If you don’t have assertions, then what do you tie this data 
to?  Tie it directly to the spec.   Is it viable to have this assertion 
metadata associated with the tests or do you need to generate the 
assertion? This doesn’t apply solely to auto-generation, that is, tests tie 
directly back to the conformance requirements.   There still needs to be 
more thought regarding auto-generation of tests and test assertions.