W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Minutes of QA WG teleconf 2003-12-18 (Modifiť par Karl Dubost)

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:49:07 -0500
Message-Id: <F0E99E05-3FD1-11D8-8963-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 18 December 2003
Scribe: Karl

(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)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DM) David Marston

(MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)


Summary of New Action Items: No new action item


Previous Telcon Minutes: http://www.w3.org/mid/3FD52929.7070804@sun.com


2.) Any routine business
	* WWW 2004
	David Marston is giving an update on the WWW2004 conference.

††††* anything about future telecon agendas?
	Next telconf the 5th of January.

	* anyone answering Jeremy Caroll?
	Abstract: Jeremy Carroll send a mail saying that
		we were planing to have test materials in the
		charter but he didn't find what he was looking
		for. He has been decided to show him the Spec
		Test Assertions that we are reviewing, and to
		ask him clarification

	Lofton: Karl, Will you follow-up with this?
	Mark: what is he asking exactly?
	Karl: I will ask for clarifications.
	Mark: Tell him that we have Test assertions.
	Lofton: We pledged test materials at each major milestones of our 
documents and we don't have.  We will be seen reasonnable if we are 
producing test materials for the CR.
	Karl: I agree with Lofton, but we have to find the resources for Test 
	Patrick: We have to first have test assertions.
	Mark: We can probably create a crude TS.
	Lofton: The TS could be a questionnaire and you fill it.
	Mark: it can be the test assertions with another format and qualifying 
words. We need more details on the conformance requirements to 
automatically generate tests.
	Lofton: We have said in the charter that we will produce the test for 
each milestones.
	Karl: Will the people be happy with making each of them Test cases?
	Mark: Put it away until the end of the call.
	Lofton: Should we put away that on 26th January
	Karl: when will we finished Test Assertions?
	Mark: At the end of this teleconf and/or in the next few days
	Karl: So I propose that at this end of the telconf we take one test 
assertion, and try to design a test case for it, and see how it works.
	Lofton: What do we do for Ops GL?
	Patrick: Let's do that after the experience of this today exercise.

3.) TA list for SpecGL

	Abstract: Mark Skall has sent [2] the test assertions for Spec 
Guidelines. The QA working group has started the review of these Test 
Assertions to identify ambiguities and concordance with the conformance 
requirements in the specifications.  We haven't finished and will 
continue on the next call the 22nd of Decembre.

Number CP 1.1
Issue: Where does "beginning of the document" refers to.
Discussion: be more precise
Decision: Replace ConfReq with the TA.

Number: CP 1.2
Issue: examples or use cases or a mixture of both? within the spec or a 
Discussion:  The intent is that any combination is allowed - we really 
mean, and/or.
"provide" is linked to its definition - allowing for inclusion within 
the spec or a link from the spec.
Decision: Change ConfReq to be "and/or".  Nothing needs to be done with 
respect to "provide".

	Number: CP 2.2
	Issue: Dependance of the execution 2.1
	Discussion: separate from 2.1 so that if fail 2.1, can still pass 2.2
	Decision: to reword the Conformance Requirements and the test 
assertions to s/in CP 2.1/in the specification/

	Number: CP 2.3:
	Issue: Missing the second MUST of the conformance req.
	Decision: Reformulate the test assertion accordingly to the missing 

         Number CP 2.4 and applicable to other CPs
         Issue: not applicability statement
         Discussion: can we remove this statement by rewriting the 
ConfReq, e.g., "If the spec addresses more than 1 COP, then..." Yes, 
but loses readability and simplicity. Could create a label, (e.g., 
Exceptions, Normative inclusions/exclusions (UAAG uses), Applicability) 
which would be included in every CP to handle exceptions - e.g., no 
exceptions, except if only 1 COP
         Decision: None yet.

Karl: I recommend we start now the work of Test Assertions and Test 
Materials for the Test GL to avoid what we are doing now, that could 
have been achieved earlier.
4.) Adjourn

Next Telconf: Monday 22th.	
		Only dedicated to this discussion.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 17:53:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:35 UTC