- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:40:14 +0300
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
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 Hazaël-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) Guest: (DM) David Marston 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 20030903 AI-20030903-3 Lofton Henderson to send an updated version of reference 4 20030907 AI-20030903-4 Patrick Curran to draft a discussion of assertions for the concepts section of TestGL 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. [dm joins] (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 Friday, 12 September 2003 08:40:22 UTC