- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:32:29 -0800
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3E5C6D8D.5050502@sun.com>
I'm sorry this is late - I've been overloaded. We only have a few days to finish this up, so please send feedback asap. Thanks...
Stylistic notations: *bold* @@link@@ (URL) ==================== * Why QA? Investment in QA activies will: Promote better, more testable, more implementable specifications Reduce the cost of developing specifications Increase the quality and interoperability of implementations Reduce duplication of test-development effort Even a small investment pays big dividends Ask us about DOM, SOAP, SVG... NOTES Originally we had two slides: why QA?, and business justification. I've combined them, since the answer to "why?" should provide the business justification. "Ask us about..." is the best we can do for now with test-cases, and probably sufficient. TALKING POINTS The ops/spec guidelines will enable you to get the bugs out of your spec early in the cycle. This will actually save you money due to fewer revision cycles. Plus, the spec will be of higher quality. If you build a test suite, this will be expensive, but: participating companies will find bugs in their implementations, which will save them money it's cheaper to contribute to a 'shared' test suite than for all implementors to build their own test suites * How the QA-WG can help you We can't do your QA work for you We don't have the resources nor the domain-specific expertise We do provide guidance, tools, and processes We can help avoid duplication of effort Follow our guidelines, use our templates, measure against our and checkpoints Tell us what else you need TALKING POINTS Our framework docs are nearing completion, and we're getting ready to re-charter - tell us what you want from us. * It's easy to get started/How to work with us NOTES During last week's teleconference we talked about a "how to get started" slide, and how this should provide some very practical examples. I haven't received any suggestions for this content, and I'm having trouble distinguishing this slide from the OpsGL slide that we propose to move to the end of the presentation. * Results @@SOAP assertion list@@ (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-testcollection-20020626) NOTES We talked about the value of providing some real-world examples of the successful application of our guidelines. I haven't received any suggestions for content. Does this belong on a separate slide? * Our Guidelines (the Seven Documents) Introduction Roadmap, primer, guide to the other documents Operational Guidelines Planning, logistics, operation, and maintenance of WG quality processes Specification Guidelines How to write clearer, more implementable, more testable specifications Test Guidelines Technologies, tools, methods for writing test materials * Operations Guidelines (think QA) Appoint a QA lead *Integrate* -- commit to QA goals and scenario *Staff* -- assess and assign appropriate staffing *Coordinate* -- synchronize QA and specification deliverables *Plan* -- for for development, publication, maintenance *How?* -- use OpsGL's @@charter template@@ and @@process template@@ (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-charter-20030217.html) (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd-20030217.html) NOTES Although I like the idea of having a positive, "here's what you can do" slide towards the end, I'm concerned about what it would do to the structure if we move this slide to the end. Specifically: How is this slide different from the "how do I get started/see how easy this is" slide that we might want to put up front? If we move this to the end, wouldn't it be weird to present SpecGL before OpsGL? * Spec Guidelines (think Testability) *Define* scope; identify what needs to conform, and how *Specify* conformance policy & requirements; provide conformance clause *Use* profiles, modules, functional levels to subset the technology *Define* extension policy *Identify* testable assertions, discretionary items *Specify* how conformance claims & statements are made NOTES This slide's "chatty style" doesn't quite match OpsGL's. Can anybody suggest an alternative? * Feedback & Next Steps What do you think of: Our last-call documents? Our tools and resources (Library, Matrix, Tools, ...)? Other feedback? What would you like us to do next? Review your processes and specs? Provide consulting services? Document existing best practices? Provide templates, tools, and test harnesses? Other suggestions? * References Our home page (and the seven docs) (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/) The Matrix (http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix) QA library (http://www.w3.org/QA/Library/) What else?
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 02:33:39 UTC