- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:39:44 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040617133905.00aa6028@mailserver.nist.gov>
Minutes: F2F Santa Clara QAWG Meeting 17 June 2004, AM Scribe: Lynne Rosenthal Summary of new action items: AI-20040617-1 PC to extract from minutes useful info on metadata classes into the Wiki, by 2004-06-30 AI-20040617-2 LH to respond to Jeremy's QAH comments by 2004-06-30 Thunderous applause and thanks to Patrick and Sun Microsystems for hosting the meeting, with excellent facilities and hotel and for ensuring we never went hungry or thirsty by providing refreshments and lunch arrangements. *Test Case Model http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jun/0025.html There are 2 levels of metadata: metadata for test case and metadata for test suite. Graph represents the metadata for the test case. Is a 'created date' important? Yes, it should be optional. **What's the difference between Description and Purpose? **What is TypeOf? Encourage people to declare their test suite model and metadata. This would be useful to people using the test suite. **What's the content of Expected Results? Dependent on the test suite. Sometimes coded into test, sometimes external file or description. In XSLT, to enable automatic comparison, they invented a binary infoset to put the results that are derived from a tree of all possible results. A cannalization of the results. Another view of expected results is what is being done with the SGML Validator. Since test materials include validators, this needs to be addressed. With validator, is valid/not valid equal to P/F. In SVG, it is the Reference Result that is compared. It's a good idea to document the model. But we should not impose a test case model, but useful to document one to show its relevance and useage, illistrating through examples the possible approaches. This is part of the documentation. We can give guidance, although it would be great if we could reference/provide tools Interesting to focus on the classes of information we think is important and why useful. Four possible classes of metadata are to enable: 1. test harness - automate the test execution. 2. sorting/filtering of tests based on profiles, subsets, conformance designations, or other areas of interest. 3. versioning select specific version or errata related tests 4. coverage i.e., ability to tie to assertions and derive coverage numbers. Continue discussion on Wiki to discuss different classes, examples, etc. ** What are the different values of Status Submitted, reviewed, rejected. There was a list of status in an earlier version. **Why there's no property for modified ? or should a date be attached. There is software to track changes, so don't need to reinvent this. Could suggest using CVS. In the model, there is no reference to the spec. One of the most critical and often overlooked references is to the errata. The metadata for the reference to the spec and errata is in the Wiki. It would be useful to have id's in the specification to link to and/or to have assertions in the spec. **Conformance requirements metadata. Not sure what this is, but may be related to the different levels of conformance (A, AA, AAA). If there are conformance designations, metadata should be able to handle this. This is handled in the 'classes of metadata filtering/sorting. Don't reinvent the wheel where it makes sense, use the Dublin Core metadata categories. Not requiring the use of RDF as your technique for encoding the metadata. **What is the Priority of a test? Labeling areas of a spec for what is more important than other areas and then use these labels to determine where to focus development efforts. Issues List and Responses. In Issues list for the documents, should we capture the results of the response to the issues responses? We need to record somewhere, in one place, all the decisions we have made and whether the resolution has been accepted. Propose a central index document with the links to the email to the commenter and their response. Lofton to initiate for QAH and Lynne to continue for SpecGL. Recruitment. Lynne/Mark to contact Jacques Durant at Fujitsu. Mark to contact Don Deutsch at Oracle. Contact Jim Bell (HP), GMD AC member Dom to pursue patent policy declaration from IBM Meeting adjourned
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 13:41:57 UTC