Re: OWL WG comments on QA Documents

Hello Jim,

Le ven 02/01/2004 à 17:08, Jim Hendler a écrit :
> The following are Web Ontology Working Group comments resulting from
> performing the OWL - QA OpsGL case study sent in a separate email. 

Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive comments [1] on the CR
specifications of the QA Framework (QAF).  We are expediting and
accelerating responses to your comments so that you may consider the
responses before your charter expires in the near future.  

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/02/WebOnt-CR-comments

We would appreciate to hear from you, whether you accept our handling of
your comments.  If you are dissatisfied with any of our responses,
please provide specifics.

Your comments resulted in the queuing of 26 specific issues,

CR-1:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/cr-issues#x1
consecutively through
CR-26:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/cr-issues#x26

At each of these issues, you will see the resolved closure by QAWG,
"Resolution".  To make a long story short, we pretty much agreed with
all of your comments, as stated in the resolution of CR-1: 

"The QA Framework is being redesigned for simplicity, clarity,
usefulness, and usability. There will be fewer documents, they will be
smaller and simpler, less authoritarian, and well syncrhonized with each
other. For details, see: f2f minutes [2], TP2004 presentation [3],  QAIG
announcement [4], and  W3C Chairs announcement [5].  For ongoing
implementation of resolution, see QAF status on QAWG home page."

[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/03/f2f-minutes#minutes-1pm
[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/tp2004-test-pc/
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Mar/0027.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004JanMar/0100.html
(Member-only)

In one exception, CR-3, we actually believe that your comment
misinterprets the nature of the CR QAF Guidelines documents.  A careful
reading should show that they do not in fact pretend to coerce the
Working Groups, but rather to set rigorous conformance criteria *for
those who chose to conform*.  (We agree that forcing conformance is a
W3C Process prerogative, and not within the authority of QAWG.)  With
the redesigned new-QAF, I think you'll see that the issue becomes moot
in any case -- different style, less authoritarian, "good faith"
conformance model.

As you read through the issue resolutions, you will see that we consider
that some of your more specific comments -- especially detailed comments
on OpsGL -- have become moot or partially moot, as a consequence of the
high-level redesign of the whole QAF family.  Examples:

CR-16:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/cr-issues#x16
CR-17:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/cr-issues#x17
..etc..

We look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Lofton Henderson and Dominique Hazael-Massieux,
for the QA WG
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org