Minutes QA WG Telecon 4 October 2004

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 4 October 2004
Scribe: Lynne

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(DM) David Marston (IBM)

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)


Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20041004-01: Karl – to create new WD of SpecGL – Oct 8
AI-20041004-02: Karl – to complete Issue 8.  – Oct 8
AI-20041004-03: Karl – to create new Issue on optional features and how 
they are to be addressed. – Oct 10

Previous Telcon Minutes:

1) Roll call
2) Routine Business
     Future telecons – Arranged for weekly telecons.
     Reading – Karl to contact Andrew regarding hotels and also develop an 

3. Specification Guidelines Issues
* Karl will create a new draft, indicating what has been modified.  The 
draft will be put in Group space.

* Review of the rewording of Principles and Good Practices statements.
Dom, with comments by Karl, have proposed new headings for Principles and 
Good Practices.

Going through each item from the email: 

ICS-005-GP and ICS-006-GP
Drop ICS.  Agreed

Should Glossary be in-line or outside the spec?  What does ‘normative 
terms’ mean?
Clarification needed.

Agreed.  Use terms already defined without changing their definition

Create subdivisions of the technology when warranted by the variety of use 
Need umbrella to encompass more than use cases, but also requirements, 
technology, etc.

Agreed.  If the technology is profiled, define rules for creating new profiles.

Make sure there is a real need for every optional feature.
Dropped the first sentence, not needed.

Lofton doesn’t like the addition of ‘optimize’ in the statement. Latest 
proposed wording, talks about optimizing, this is something that wasn’t in 
the original CR.  Meaning of this is drifting from what was originally 
meant. Good idea to revisit the original CR checkpoint to understand what 
was meant, since we are drifting away from the original intent.  Karl – 
Optimization comes from the description of narrowing the choices.  Karl 
will indicate the original CR text in the new working group draft – this 
will help in understanding the document. More discussion needed.

Can a discussion about optimization be part of a specification?  If no, 
then this is a process oriented thing.  Is this appropriate inside a 
technology specification?  If yes, should have both pros/cons.  Discussion 
of the consequences of a choice should be part of a specification.  Once a 
specification introduces optionality, then it is too late to warn 
users.  Main thing is that spec writers consider it very carefully.  Does 
it make sense to include a discussion about why options are bad, but you 
included them anyway?  Karl to make this a new Issue – try to clarify 
optional features, how to deal with them, address them.

Agreed.  Clearly identify optional features.

Address Extensibility
Does this need to be addressed in multiple documents when a technology is 
split into several specifications?

Agreed. If extensibility is allowed, define an extension mechanism.

Agreed.  Identify deprecated features.

Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 15:36:30 UTC