bibliography for Monday telecon [UPDATED]

QAWG --

[Note.  If your time is constrained, I suggest that you read [5] and [4c] 
first, in that order.]

Monday's topic will be:  first look at how to handle comments from Jeremy 
Carroll and/or OWL.

There is a *lot* of material.  Therefore I am sending a bibliography 
now.  Please try to familiarize yourself with the material before Monday, 
if you haven't already read it thoroughly.   I will try to send an 
identification and summary of the issues that we need to address, before 
the weekend (hopefully).

[1] - [3] deal with procedural objections to how QA has progressed the QAF.
[4] are personal comments about QAF, from JC to QA, requesting formal response.
[5] are consensus WG comments from OWL to QA, requiring formal response.
[6] & [7] are additional references (uncertain about response requirements).


[1] "Objection to QA Framework"
=====
thread starting with JC objection and continuing with KD&DH rebuttals -- 
about whether we are contravening W3M decisions, and following proper W3C 
procedures.  Thread starts at [1a] and continues in [1b]:
[1a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0014.html [JC]
[1b] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2004/01/qa-chairs-thread.html



[2] "Objection to not formally addressing comment"
=====
thread wherein JC objects to our lack of formal response to some comments 
he made in July on www-qa (which themselves resulted in signficant 
QAWG/public discussion thread).  KD replies/rebuts.  Start at:
[2a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0016.html


[3] "Objection to not listing open issues when advancing to CR"
=====
thread wherein JC objects to not listing his TestGL concerns as open issues 
when advancing OpsGL and SpecGL to CR, and objects to progressing the 3 
parts at different pace.  KD replies.  Start at:
[3a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0017.html


[4] "Personal review of QAF"
=====
contribution from JC, w/ a review of the three parts of QAF, requesting 
formal consideration and reply.  Message and document are at:
[4a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0002.html
[4b] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jan/att-0000/
Critical topics are summarized at:
[4c] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jan/att-0000/#x15


[5] "OWL WG comments on QA Documents"
=====
contribution from OWL, official WG position on QAF.  Message containing 
comments is at:
[5a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0001.html


[6] "Web Ontology Working Group - Response to "call for  implementat"
=====
contribution from OWL, their case study of applying OpsGL to their 
WG.  Background for [5] (undetermined yet, whether its contents require 
formal reply).
[6a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0000.html


[7] "RDF Core test driven development and QA Test Doc"
=====
thread started by JC about TestGL, about whether it requires waterfall and 
prohibits XP (test-driven dev't).  Discussed last week (14-jan 
telecon).  Start at:
[7a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jan/0000.html


Regards,
-Lofton.