- From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:27:59 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
The QAWG asked me, as the enumerator of the Seven Types of W3C Specs (seen in Guideline 2 of the Spec Guidelines), to address classification of a spec that provides Rules for Profiles. A spec may define some profiles, as anticipated in Guideline 3, or it may provide some rules to be used by others when creating profiles, or it may do both. GL 3 requires that a spec make a clear and findable statement about whether profiles are used, and related statements about how they are used in conformance claims and assessment of conformance. If other dimensions of variability are in use as well, most will probably apply per-profile, depending on public reaction to the whole scheme of variability. It's worth noting that GL 3 doesn't impose many constraints on individual profiles. In particular, the only way in which pre-defined profiles may differ from those derived from rules, and that is recognized in GL 3, is if a "full" or "tiniest" profile exists, it would have to be a pre-defined one. Derivation of profiles from a set of rules is an activity that would happen after a spec is finalized (achieved Rec status). Thus, the set of rules is as much a specified item (target of the spec) as other items on the lists in GL 2. I propose that the List of Seven spec types be expanded to eight, viz., 1. foundation or abstract (e.g., Infoset), 2. content/data (e.g., MathML, SVG), 3. protocols (e.g., SOAP), 4. processors (e.g., XSLT, XML Query), 5. APIs (e.g., DOM), 6. notation/syntax (e.g., XPath), 7. set of events (e.g., one part of XForms), 8. rules for deriving profiles (e.g., part of SVG). Do the profiles so derived exemplify a Class of Product? Probably. The profile can be an additional set of content-objects, functions, or events beyond the basic ones, for use in a specific application or field of endeavor. The profile mechanism might also be used to set a contract between software and hardware, such as defining a set of expectations for a PDA as a profile of a spec first written assuming full-power workstations. For the next draft of the SpecGL, I think there should be a new bullet item on the un-numbered list of classes of product in GL 2, saying: profile (see GL 3) derived from the spec's Rules for Profiles Finally, it's probably worth adding a new Checkpoint 3.6 that says: 3.6 If the spec allows other groups to define new profiles in the future, provide rules for derived profiles that will enable the derived profiles to be well-specified. Derived profiles should specified in a way that meets all the pertinent checkpoints of this document. Derived profiles should not clash with pre-defined profiles, if there are any. Checkpoints from Guideline 9 (extensions) can be adapted into rules for profiles. The rules must be testable, so that an independent tester can determine whether the specification of a derived profile conforms to the rules for derived profiles in the base specification. I hope the above changes will clarify the difference between pre-defined profiles and rules for profiles, both of which may appear in a W3C Rec being written per the SpecGL constraints. .................David Marston
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 23:28:48 UTC