[DRAFT] Minutes QA WG Telconf - 2003-06-02

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 02-June-2003

Scribe: Kirill Gavrylyuk 

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)

(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

Absent: [...tbd at roll-call -- transfer names from master list above...] 
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: [...to be filled in after telcon...] 
AI-YYYYMMDD-N   Who        What    DEADLINE!
AI-20030602-1   Spec GL Editors    Start discussion regarding item 5 in the agenda(Remaining issues grous)  20030603
AI-20030602-2   Patrick            Produce a new wording for the checkpoint 9.6(Spec Guidelines)            20030609
AI-20030602-3   Spec GL Editors    Produce a rationale and instructions for issue LC 80                     ????????
AI-20030602-4   Spec GL Editors    Produce a list of CPs that have applicability exclusions (LC-73)         ????????
AI-20030602-5   Spec GL Editors    Clarify GL3, CP 3.1, reiterate that the list of the requirements can be derived     ????????


Previous Telcon Minutes: 

LH: Discussing the place for the October-November f2f. Candidates please prepare for Crete.
LH: Lofton would like to get an email dialog going this week about the item 5 from the agenda. 
Spec GL editors, could you try putting out some material to start discussion on that?

LH: Agenda item 3, second bullet. Lynne proposed resolution for the LC 40. 
LR: This has been already discussed in the email and agreed. I don't see any need to discuss it anymore further.
It is already endorsed.
LH: If this is endorsed, the issue should move to closed.
LR: Moves to close LC40. Does everyone agree?
LH: The only side comment I offer the wording may further change depending on the other related LC issues. LC33 does not like the vagueness of the word 

"used". We agreed to improve the wording. 
Closing this one may affect the wording. 

LH: Extensibility leftovers. We closed extensibility issue. Except for LC80,81. No extension modes for implementations. I looked at the LC101 again. I think 

the originator actually misread what we are saying in the Ck 9.6 . I'm proposing to close this issue and point out the misreading.

LH:  Issue 81 (checkpoint 9.6). It occurred to me that in the conformance requirements we phrased the word more narrowly then our motivation was. We wanted to mitigate the interoperability downside impact of the extensions being allowed. My impression is that we are more focused on the technique rather then on the motivation.

LR: I propose to delete the checkpoint 9.6. It causes a lot of confusion. I don't like the fact we put a requirement on implementations.

DM: I'd rather focus on requiring the specification to ensure that what is specified is fully functional.
PC: I think the problem that checkpoint is trying to address is important.

LH: The spec GL will require to state explicitly the policy (require no extension mode, allow no extension mode).

DH: Would you be willing to draft something for this checkpoint, Patrick? 

PC: In one week I'll try produce the draft.

LH: Item 3. 4th bullet - exclusions/inclusions applicability.
DH: If for a good reason the checkpoint is not applicable, 
LH: I'm willing with any resolution on this issue.
DH: Resolution: No change. There is not going to be a problem for a SpecGL if non-applicability clause will be too narrow in some cases.
LH: LC26. Lynne wrote a proposal a while back on this. 
LH: My feeling is that we shouldn't introduce any more terminology here. For 73.2 we use different styles (inclusions/exclusions) - I think this is an editorial comment.
DH: May be we should just say that we will try to be more consistent?
LH: Agree. We should mention in the resolution that introducing any new terminology brings no gain.

LH: The last bullet of item 3 - LC42, LC96. 
DH: I don't think it is really relevant.
LR: I agree that this is rather a suggestion. I don't think that there is any contradiction.
LH: How about take the "need to explain" out. Let's leave it to the editors.
LR: I need to make sure it parsers correctly.
LH: Each class of products can define them independently.
LR: Suggested to resolve as we leave it as Pri 2. Lynne and Dom will add the rationale based on what is discussed, that in fact the list can be derived.

LH: Suggest to close the meeting on this. Some bits of the item 5 may be discussed in Crete.

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 12:52:28 UTC