Final Minutes of QAWG telcon 2004-07-26

Final Minutes

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 26-July-2004
Scribe: Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

(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)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

(DM) David Marston (IBM Research)

Summary of New Action Items:

  LH To rewrite the TestGL document status section as agreed. Due

  KD to send email to TAG to explain how we are looking at the issue.
Due 2004-08-09


Previous Telcon Minutes:

  1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

  2.) routine business

  - Future telecons

  (Monday 9 August): DD & DH on holiday for next telcon
  Mark Skall and NIST: Changes in organization.

  MS: 3 weeks ago I was made acting director of ITL, so it may be
  difficult for me to participate.

  - Texts from NY Panel organized by Dave Marston
  KD: Could we put together the texts presented at NY?
  DM: There was no recording going on at meeting
  MS: I can send my notes
  DD: I have no minutes/notes
  KD: could you provide 1-2 paras of explanation
  DD: sure
  KD: please send it all to DM

  [ Please send all notes & minutes of presentations to Dave ]
  KD: Extra item - a question from LH - about ExTech - cf the email link
[1] - this doesn't reflect current thinking about test-lite. So maybe
put a place-holder there.  Use a pointer to previous version & point to
new ideas/wiki etc

  DH: It's possible & recommended to do this (i.e. to give regular updates).

  DD: Please ensure that we say 'further publication has been postponed'

  LH: I'm concerned that status section will be overlooked and people
will think that the February draft is latest stage of our work. So
prefer to not link to old draft

  KD: We could make changes obvious

  DH: We could remove everything but placeholder and detail the new

  LH: Previous version would point to Feb., status section  would ref.
new resources

  KD: So delete the body of the doc. - keep status
  [ AI LH To rewrite the TestGL document status section as agreed. due 2
weeks ]
  Aside: LH: I tried to reference a wiki item. I looked at source and
found a name attribute but no id attribute. Isn't name attribute deprecated?

  KD: Wiki s/w to blame. We tried to contribute to s/w but developers are

   3.) How to manage normative references in W3C Specifications
         Issue Björn Hörhmann [1]
         Discussion Lead: Karl [2]

  KD: Implication of pointing to a ref'd spec. includes a feature taken
from another spec. So ref. has to be precise.

  DH: We should try to get a very basic solution.

  DM: Every time you cite a spec - have to be clear if you mean an exact
version or if you want your citation to track the spec.

  KD: Tracking a spec could lead to problems

  DM: E.g. XML 1.1 names & Unicode has this tracking.

  LH: It's a fairly rare circumstance - what should spec-lite attitude
be - treat it as a rarity?

  DH: I'm not comfortable with it - we can't predict future of a spec -
  e.g. deprecated features

  DM: One could imagine it with functions & operators (for example
reusing XPATH material)

  PC: Examples where a ref. is strictly normative are very rare and
dangerous examples where a reference to a future version of a spec is
strictly normative.  Maybe we should encourage but not mandate tracking
to future specs

  DH: There's the relationship with extensibility to consider

  KD: Yes, where should it go in the doc?
  DH: Maybe section B.3 & rename it to be more general

  [ agreement that discussion should go in B.3, KD to draft this text]	

   4.) XML and Extensibility
         Discussion Lead: Dom [3]
         Dave Marston has a suggestion [4]
         Would it be enough for SpecGL to say that every
         WG must assume that there will be a newer version
         of every spec? Maybe we could add in some principles
         that are already well established, such as: everything
         in the XML world must be marked with a version
  DM: Both the article & Dave Orchard article recognize that versioning
gets complicated so propose use extension mechanisms to solve 80-90% of
these issues.

  MS: Version - this may be an Ops issue, rather than Spec issue?

  KD: Would someone like to volunteer to review the article?

  DM: I did analyze the other article. TAG is new - everyone saying the
we can't solve the entire thing but TAG will eventually produce
something like an OpsGL. So SpecGL could say 'use the TAG recommendation'
  DH: So what overlap do we have with the web arch doc?
  [ AI - KD to send email to TAG to explain how we are looking at the
issue. due 2 weeks ]
  DH: Dave.. who would you like to review your published items?

  LH: I intend to do that
  DH: LH just sent a mail about status of Handbook..
  - Extra item: QAH editing status [2]

  LH: Item (1) The question of how to deal with knock-on effects of
TestGL delay. There are 6 places in QAH affected. I propose that we
don't try to rewrite these to reflect delayed status of TestGl but
rather put a caveat in status section. In ref. section - I would like to
explain status of TestGL & point to incubator  area/wiki
  LH: all links in text point to ref section - which point to TR
  KD: but it will be redundant...[ AT - part of this conversation missing]

  LH: Is everyone happy with proposal? [to not rewrite]
  [no objections]
  LH: Also it lets us talk about it at the next f2f since next
publication will be after that.
  LH: we agreed to split out appendix - primer & usage scenarios as a
separate doc. Follow links on the mail [2] I just sent: item (2). QAH
now references QA roadmap. It's unclear what status of roadmap will be.
  Regarding items 3,4,5: people might want to look at these and respond
by email
  LR: Re. QAPD->TSPD: I recall from f2f that we discovered that all
different WGs called it a 'test process' document
  DH: Using 'TS' makes it too specialized - no room for non-test
subjects to be added.
  LH: 90% of material is related to tests. but we don't restrict
addition of non-test material in there. So maybe we shouldn't clamp down
the scope yet.
  LH: Re. capitalized question (item 5)?
  DH: 'Yes', should be.
  LH: item 4, chronology diagram. this gets more & more irrelevant to
QAH. Should we keep it?  (in any form)

  LH: A suggestion to QAWG - can anyone propose a simplified version?


Received on Monday, 16 August 2004 13:15:16 UTC