

[DRAFT] 11-April-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:48:54 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F60414CA26@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Resending in attempt to fix linebreaks:)

Please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks.

QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 11-April-2002
Scribe: Kirill Gavrylyuk


(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: 
A-2002-04-11-1 - KD - send registration form for the next f2f 
A-2002-04-11-2 - KG - draft the proposed guideline/checkpoint and send
to Lynne 
A-2002-04-11-3 - LR - add checkpoint to Include the Conformance Clause 
A-2002-04-11-4 - LR - add clarification to the checkpoint 1.1 for the
words "consistently and appropriately" 
A-2002-04-11-5 - LR - separate Chkpt 1.1 and 1.4 into a separate
guideline, add checkpoint for terminology section 
A-2002-04-11-6 - LR - start discussion on the Gd 2.

Previous Telecon Minutes:


LH: Topic - Spec Guidelines. 
KD: Announcement. We have our next f2f meeting set up in Montreal
University, Montreal, Canada, June 13 - 14. Need to provide MAC address
for your laptops. Karl will send later the registration form. Badges and
other logistic need to be taken care of. Room is booked.

LH: Let's move on. Spec Guidelines. Lynne how would you like editorial
input handle?
LR: Minor changes, typos - send directly to me. Big changes - to the

LH: Goals for our publications. Certain, we will publish this ~11-12th
of May. Of first goal is to get spec guidelines watched and approved
among ourselves. We need to agree that we have the right guidelines and
the right checkpoints, enough explanations. Not mandatory to have a
complete consensus for all the priorities. 
MS: Why not to go through priorities along with going through the

LR: The goal of today's meeting is to discuss the guidelines, what
checkpoints are right or wrong. No need to discuss wording unless it's
important. Lynne gave introduction to the document. Spec guidelines have
2 major parts: conformance and testability. 

KG: comments on the guidelines:
- Guideline or checkpoint for List of Normative use cases.
- Add checkpoint to explicitly define areas with unspecified behavior.
LH: Comment: Need a checkpoint for the optional features
KG: will write a draft for the guideline that would have checkpoints:
include Normative Use Cases, include Primer, etc. Will write checkpoint
for unspecified behavior.
LH: How do we ensure the clarity of the spec. Example: XSD spec.
LR: Question: clarity of the language - there is no way to validate the
DM: Its hard to measure the clarity - you have to take dev and ask how
many times you need to reed it.
MS: Let's move on. Clarity is a part of the checkpoint 1 already and it
can be part of any other checkpoint
DM: Gd10: We need a separation between what test assertions should be
there and how to write test assertions. We need a checkpoint that says:
Include test assertions.
DM: Input on discretionary items.  
SM: Should we add Internationalization?
DM: How do we deal with other relative requirements that are in the
scope of other groups. Should we add them in, or should we simply point
to the pubrules. Discussion on whether internationalization is in scope
or not. 
LH: We record this as an issue. It is related to issue 11. We'll put it
aside for now.
LH: any more discussion for the guideline level?
LH: Go for the discussion on the guidelines. 
MS: Need a checkpoint: Include a conformance clause. Discussion. 
LH: Having this checkpoint is Pri1.

Decided to separate 1.1 and 1.4 into a separate guideline about
Informative and Normative.Add a checkpoint about words in Terminology in
RFC2119 section.

MS: Not clear, what is "to use consistently and appropriately" wrt MUST,
SHALL and SHOULDs. Syntactical consistency?

Discussion with Lynne.
LR: I'll clarify it in the note for the checkpoint.

LH: Suggesting Dave to contribute to Gd 3 regarding classes of the
DM: I want to wait till Andrew to reply first
DM: I'll send a message to the list regarding how to classify the specs
for : protocols, APIs, etc...

LR: Not sure if the GD2 is a separate guideline or it is a part of
something else. This is an attempt to capture the profiles and levels of
conformance from specs like UUAG. Discussion on Gd2. Where is it needed
or not. 
DM: part of it is Gd 8, part of it belongs to other Gds. 
LR: Let me recap on this guideline. I will start a thread on this.
MS: Why don't we ask everybody to email what is not in the Gd2.
KD: Would like to raise again the issue of Japan
LH: For the next conference we need to continue this spec.
DD: Would like to have 10 minutes to describe what are the technical
guidelines (spec authoring and grammars) about.

Next Meeting:
Day(s):  Thursday
Date(s):  18th April 2002
Time: 2-3:30 EST

Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 22:49:07 GMT
