- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:03:47 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 02:54 PM 6/3/03 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >[...] >In my opinion, a good way to sensibilise the readers about this aspect >would be to provide an informative table about typical problematic >relationships between DoV. The goal would be to fill each cases of the >table at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/06/dov-relations > >So, if you have any experience showing how such or such DoV >relationships hurt interoperability, or some specific details on points >that should be addressed when combining DoV X and DoV Y, please share >them with us, and I'll try to keep the table up to date (and probably >integrate it in the SpecGL later on). Such a table is a good idea. Once we have such a table with significantly filled-in entries, it might actually be more appropriate to put it in SpecET. This level of detail might be overwhelming for SpecGL. For the next version of SpecGL, I think that we would satisfy the related Last Call (LC) comments/issues with something that is not as complete. The LC commentors basically did not understand what the various "DoV interrelationship" checkpoints were asking for. So the new SpecGL subsection could be a brief conceptual description ... that some DoV used in a specification might interrelate (e.g., maybe both modules and profiles are used, and profiles are built from atomic modules), that some combinations might exacerbate interoperability problems, that some combinations might mitigate other potential interoperability traps, etc. In addition, perhaps give a small handful of "for examples", e.g., a short bullet list of brief examples. I think such a succinct treatment would satisfy the LC-21 comment, for example: "...define their [several CoP] relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability' this is a confusing checkpoint that is repeated in each successive guideline. It's really not clear exactly what is intended." Regards, -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 17:03:19 UTC