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

Re: DRAFT minutes QA WG Telcon 20030903

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:23:05 -0700
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <3F562379.30508@sun.com>

You can make the due date for #2 today - here's my rewrite:

"The OpsGL and SpecGL documents clearly state their scope. Since these 
documents have been available for over 1-1/2 years in approximately 5 
published Working Drafts, and are now in Last Call, it would not be 
appropriate to broaden their scope at this late stage."

#4 looks OK to me, but how about "draft a discussion of assertions for 
the concepts section of TestGL".

Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:

> All,
> Please provide feedback. I specifically need feedback on AI 2 (due 
> date) and 4 (wording).
> Thanks,
> /Dimitris
> QA Working Group Teleconference
> Wednesday, 03-September-2003
> -- 
> Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis
> Attendees:
> (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
> (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
> (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
> (DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
> (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
> (VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)
> (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
> Regrets:
> (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
> (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
> (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
> Absent:
> (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
> (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
> Summary of New Action Items:
> AI-20030903-1 Karl Dubost reply to Dan Connolly that we will work very 
> closely with other WGs to improve the framework 20030905
> AI-20030903-2 Patrick Curran to redraft two sentences about 
> interaction between QA and WAI and send to Lofton ???
> AI-20030903-3 Lofton Henderson to send an updated version of reference 
> 4 20030907
> AI-20030903-4 Patrick Curran to draft someting on assertions for the 
> concept section 20030915
> AI-20030903-5 Patrick Curran  publish issues list for TestGL (not 
> necessarily final form) 20031003
> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Sep/0005.html
> Previous Telcon Minutes: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0080.html
> Minutes:
> 1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership
> 2.) Any routine business
>         [- overdue Action Items ]
> 3.) Status of OpsGL transition to CR
>         - Last minute change request (DC): y/n? [1]
> (lh) One comment came from Dan Connolly. He suggested OpsGL was too 
> dry, even with revised intro. QA framework intro starts off with 
> overview of this doc, I linked from our first bullet. I think DC 
> proposes there is a new section at the beginning. Practically I have 
> no time to do this.
> (pc) I agree with DC that it is rather dull. Do not think we can 
> significally change, but have to live with it.
> (lh) Most similar documents are like this. We can prove the readability.
> (pc) Real world stories are a good idea, in case we have them they 
> belong to the ExTech documents.
> (lh) Anyone supports making this change?
> [none]
> (lh) Then we'll let it die for now. As a courtesy, should we send a 
> message to Dan saying that his point is well taken but that we cannot 
> do justice to this right now?
> (kd)  we should reply to Dan Connolly that we will work very closely 
> with other WGs to improve the framework and the editorial part.
> 4.) Any SpecGL topics
>         - DoC position on WAI issues [2]
>         - draft DoC [3]
> Looking at the reference 2 on the issue about interaction between QA 
> and WAI. We have endorsed that we need to have a consensus position to 
> point at, looking at reference 2 to see if that is a good position. 
> Patrick suggested that point 7 was unnecessary, Lofton agrees.
> (pc) Tone down 8 as well.
> (lh) Agree
> (lh) any other comments?
> 5.) Progression of "Intro"
>         - approval of issue resolutions [4]
>         - Intro draft "W3C WG Note"
> (lh) Caught up this week, written resolutions on all issues pertaining 
> to the introduction.
> (lh) Will send an updated version of the document by the end of this 
> week (reference 4)
> 6.) TestGL topics (continued)
>         - continue at #2 in [5]
>         - previous refs:  [6a], [6b], [6c], [6d]
> (pc) Item 2 is quick. We talked 2 weeks ago about overlap. We overlook 
> licensing. In Crete we talked about categories of test materials. 
> Possibility to license it. We said that the discussion of licenses 
> should go into TestGL. It is however specifically adressed in OpsGL. I 
> agree that this is the right place for it. Proposing to leave it in 
> OpsGL.
> (pc) Back to discussion started a couple of weeks ago on assertions 
> and metadata. I want to try to follow up on the discussion we started 
> about cases where we believe assertions can be derived from the spec, 
> or test cases derived from the spec. This is a possibility but the 
> guidelines that says you should create assertions and so on clearly do 
> not apply. Alternative would be to take all metadata and assert it 
> with test cases rather than assertions.
> (pc) Alternative interpretation is to list the particular expression 
> from the grammar and say it is an assertion. What do we meen when we 
> talk of an assertion?
> (sm) There are two definitions of assertion. We should aim at 
> consistency. In the SpecGL definition we have a richer definition.
> (lh) We have a resolution that the glossary definition should be 
> changed to match the SpecGL one.
> (pc) sounds like you're saying there are cases where there are no 
> assertions at all
> (sm) there are cases where we have atomic only assertions
> (pc) anyone who believes there is a one to one correspondece between 
> assertions and test cases is wrong, it is easy to imagine one 
> assertion being associated with up to a dozen test cases.
> (pc) for me an assertion is fundamental. I would argue that you cannot 
> have a test case without an assertion. That assertion is either 
> present in the spec or you can point to it and explicitly explain how 
> you derive it
> (sm) What then is a test case description?
> (sm) will try to come up with something in writing
> (lh) before we move on, the whole discussion makes me think on whether 
> we need to describe different types of testing. Seems to me we spent 
> much time lately talking about test assertions and conformance 
> requirements, maybe we should describe differences in a concept section.
> (pc) it really needs explaination
> (pc) If you cannot point directly to an assertion in spec, the test is 
> invalid. you have to be able to point directly to an assertion, not 
> just a section in a specification for example.
> (dd) adds to the burden of the author
> (pc) language should be precise enough, the concept of assertions 
> themselves does not put a bigger burden on the authors. test 
> developers may have a different view
> (dm) would not shy away from saying specs should do more
> (pc) most specs do not tag specifically.
> (lh) we should draft something
> (pc) I'll put something together
> (lh) also, we need to be better at keeping TestGL issues
> (pc) have done so informally
> (pc) AI publish issues list for TestGL (not necessarily final form), 
> one month
> 7.) Adjourn
> adjourned at 12.08
> 8.) Overflow (12-12:30): available.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 13:36:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:34 UTC