- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:00:25 +0100
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
* Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> [2003-02-24 10:13-0700] > FYI. This is mainly of interest within the W3C, but since it has technical > significance I'll send it to the public list. > > > > The QA Working Group (QAWG) is preparing to publish Last Call Working > > Drafts of these documents: > > > > * QA Framework: Introduction (Intro) [1] > > * QA Framework: Operational Guidelines (OpsGL) [2] > > * QA Framework: Specification Guidelines (SpecGL) [3] > [..] > > The QAWG welcomes all comments during the Last Call review period, but > > we particularly request that the follow groups commit to providing > > feedback by March 14th. > [..] > > * Web Services > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-intro-20030210/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/ So, as promised yesterday night during the call, I started having a look at those documents. As I forecasted, they will be significant to us because, once they are approved, my understanding is that we will be asked to implement checkpoints whose priority is 1: | Some checkpoints are more critical than others for the timely | production of high-quality, highly usable test materials. Therefore | each checkpoint has a priority level based on the checkpoint's impact | on the quality and timing of the test materials produced by a Working | Group. | | [Priority 1] | Critical/essential. These checkpoints are considered to be | basic requirements for ensuring that test materials are | usable, and are produced in time to ensure the quality of the | standard and its implementations. Satisfying these checkpoints | is a basic requirement to ensure quality and interoperability | of the standard. I have quickly read the documents, and what they are asking makes sense to me. Some part of it will not apply directly to us since we are not producing a specification, but we should have people read it anyway. I will also quote the introduction document[4] about who should read those documents: | 4.1.2 For the Introduction | | This first part, "Introduction", should be read by everyone involved | with the work of the WGs. In addition to reviewing the scope and | goals of the QA Activity, and QA activities within the WGs, it also | provides a detailed roadmap and guide to the Framework documents | family. [..] | 4.1.3 For the guideline parts | | From the perspective of conformance and quality practices, several | roles are significant in a WG's activities. In the following it is | assumed that, associated with each WG, there will be a "Test" group | (WG-TS), that is focused on conformance test suites and tools. WG-TS | consists of a subset of the WG members, and possibly other W3C | members from outside of the WG. (The WG-TS requirement is detailed in | the operational guidelines.) | | all WG members | For any (potential) WG member, the charter and QA-commitment | parts of Operational Guidelines ([QAF-OPS], Guideline 1) | should be helpful in understanding what the WG has committed | to deliver. Familiarity with the Specification Guidelines | [QAF-SPEC] will be helpful to any member who participates in | the advancement of the WG's specifications to Recommendation. | | WG spec editors & authors | As for all WG members, the operational guidelines [QAF-OPS] | are useful. A good working understanding of specification | guidelines [QAF-SPEC] will be needed in order to satisfy the | specification guidelines and checkpoints, and Specification | Examples & Techniques [SPEC-EXTECH] should be a valuable | resource in choosing document structure, formats, and | techniques that will facilitate satisfying the requirements. | | WG chair | As the person ultimately responsible for both the advancement | of the WG's specifications and the WG's QA projects, a | familiarity with the guidelines for operations and process | [QAF-OPS], for specifications [QAF-SPEC], and for test | materials [QAF-TEST] will be useful. One of things that I will note is that one of the checkpoints that we will have to meet is: Checkpoint 4.1. Appoint a QA moderator. [Priority 1]. "The QA moderator is the overall manager of all of the QA activities in the Working Group, and (by default) principal point-of-contact." I think that having somebody in this role ASAY will help us be clear about our commitments. One comment that we could make to the QA people is that I am not sure that their framework has considered a Working Group which wouldn't produce a technology per se, such as ours. We should probably discuss that with them next week. Regards, Hugo 4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-intro-20030210/#b2ab3d197 -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 07:00:29 UTC