- From: Peter Fawcett <pfawcett@real.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:05:01 -0700
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Nope, just forgot to add the group to the cc line when I did reply to all... So for the group... Peter >Is there any reason that you're not circulating this to QAWG list? > >-Lofton. > >At 03:34 PM 6/11/03 +0000, you wrote: >>Howdy, >>I've got some notes for stuff to talk about for this. Of course I >>wont be there :( but at least I can perhaps help spawn some >>discussion on some of the current issues as I see it. >> >>I reviewed the most recent draft as posted over the last few days >>and here's 7 or so topics that are some what general and high level >>but still need addressing... >> >>So with out further ado: >> >>1) Need clearer/better definitions of what Test Framework and Test >>Management System mean, what they are composed of, how they differ. >>Current definitions are both at the top of section 3: "A test >>management systems is a system that organizes and manages test >>cases and allows information about test cases to be associated with >>the tests. A test framework is a system that assists in the running >>of the tests." >>This may well not be sufficient for non-qa aware folks.... >> >>2) Conformance requirements for Checkpoint 2.2 is needed. Currently >>it's just TBD. This is especially important as Checkpoints 3.2 and >>3.3 as well as others have a dependency on the fulfillment of 2.2 >>(and is it a good thing (tm) to have dependencies such as this...) >> >>3) Large parts of the intro have been re-written to address >>comments and issues that had come up. I'm hoping that is better >>but it needs to be reviewed a lot to be sure that it address >>concerns that folks had (the majority of the concerns had to do >>with clarity, fixing errors from copying parts of the intro of >>other Gl docs and not having it fully integrated, arranging the >>intro to use the same format/layout as the rest of the GL family >>and toning down a few claims that were a bit over reaching (like >>claims of completeness in test suites)). My feeling as author of >>the re-write is that it still needs a bit of work... and I'd love >>some comments on what others feel still needs work and what it >>needs. >> >>4) I don't think that Lynne's suggestions about differences between >>'interop' testing and test-plans for finished specifications has >>been fully addressed. I believe that there is some mention of this >>in the spec now but it may need more emphasis (in the intro or some >>where else). >> >>5) Many of these Guidelines as written are still quite hard to >>verify or validate in any way. This brings up the bigger issue of >>what can we say that can be "verified" but that doesn't place >>restrictions on Test Authors. Not placing restrictions on test case >>authors was discussed at the F2F in Boston and every one agreed in >>theory that we are not telling people 'how' to write test suites, >>just what properties should exists for a quality test suite (focus >>on what should exist when the suite is done rather than focusing >>on the process of creation). But even then it's hard to see how >>some of these things can be verified, what objective criteria do we >>use, what do we measure... >> >>6) Many (most) of the priorities are new so they need to be checked >>to verify that they are correct in every one's opinion. >> >>7) Some checkpoints do not have a rationale and some of the >>rationale's need more details ( The only one I see that doesn't >>have any at all is Checkpoint 6.2). >> >>Have a good time in Crete, I hope it's nice and productive. >> >>Thanks, >>Peter >>
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 13:05:05 UTC