- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:12:05 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
At 03:34 PM 6/15/2005 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 13:54 -0400, Karl Dubost a écrit : >[...] >I guess the question remains to me "what is it that we want to say about >this concept that deserves a name and a definition?". In other words, I >have no problem calling what you describe above an umbrella >specification, but what do you think are special about these? What is >going to be the core of the discussion about it? From my memory, this arose because we wanted to make sure that a collection of specifications somehow included proper conformance clause(s). [Counter example: the CSS3 collection] That could be accomplished by having an "umbrella specification", that defined any conformance material or requirements common to the collection. More below... >As a reminder, we introduced this concept back in Reading; here are the >relevant bits of the minutes: >""" >[KD issue - Principle A1.1 - Include a Conformance Clause] > >[KD] A technology can be defined by multiple docs/specs at different >levels of maturity. >How can we define a Conformance Clause that applies to the whole set? >(Eg, CSS3.) > >[PC] In the Java world we create an "umbrella specification" (meta >specifiction) that >covers all. >[MS] This is a more generic problem. >[LR] Every document must contain the clause or point to it. >[KD] RDF has multiple docs, but they are at least moved forward together >[PC] If there are multiple docs/specs, there must be a high-level document >that pulls them all together. >[LR/PC] What about "component" specs that are referenced/included in >multiple other specs, such >as XPath or Xinclude? >[PC] They must define conformance requirements that will be used >by/incorporated into the >higher-level specs. >[MS] This discussion should be "higher level" (not buried in a single >guideline) >[all] Where could we put such a discussion? >[PC] Suggests adding a Concepts or Terminology section >[MS] Beware trying to set W3C policy as a whole >[PC] We can make some recommendations: if you're creating a spec >designed to be >incorporated into other specs, define your conformance clause >accordingly, and if you're >creating a family of specs, create a higher-level 'umbrella spec' that >defines the >relationship between the various components, and what it means to >conform to the >collection as a whole >[AT] Remember that users/implementors will ultimately choose what pieces >or components >they want to conform to. >[PC] WSI is an example of a "collective" or "integration" spec. >[PC] There are three models: standalone spec, spec intended to be part >of a "family", >and spec intended to be incorporated into another spec. >[DH] A specification by definition includes normative content? > >[agreement] Add a concepts section in the Introduction, addressing these >issues. >""" >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Oct/0097 > >The main point that was made in this discussion was regarding different >degrees of advancement inside a family of technologies; but I don't >think there is any difference between that situation and a spec >depending on another specification with a separate degree of advancement >in general. [Disclaimer... I wasn't at Reading but dialed in some.] I don't think "different advancement" is necessarily the issue. The issue still exists when they (multiple parts) are all done, if either: -- they contain multiple conflicting conformance bits; -- or, they contain no clear conformance bits at all, that allow you to draw conformance conclusions about the collection as a whole or common conformance concepts that apply to multiple parts. "Umbrella specification" is a handle for dealing with that. -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 16:12:09 UTC