Oops…I just read this
email.
I like posting
minutes on the Wiki better, since other people can make changes if something
is not accurate. Also the minutes I saw Jacques posted on the WG site are
kinda lumped together with other documents. Can we put a link on the WG site
to link to the minute page on the Wiki which I have already created one at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/tag/MeetingMinutes.
Have a look, if we don’t like the wiki approach we can go back to the WG
site.
-
Serm
From:
Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM [mailto:Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:02
PM
To: Serm
Kulvatunyou
Cc:
tag@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tag] tag meeting minutes
2007-05-17
Victor and I have just briefly discussed the use of
the Wiki.We realized that the OASIS "collaboration software" (see our homepage
at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tag/)
already provides some useful tools. Specifically, email archiving, document
management, a calendar, and a simple action-item management system. There's no
reason for us to re-invent the wheel, and since there will be some
expectations on the part of people outside the group that they'll be able to
find things here, I suggest that we use these facilities for:
* posting
meeting minutes
* managing our time (via the calendar)
* managing our
action items
* storing "formal" documents such as white-papers, the spec
itself, etc.
We can use the Wiki for more informal collaboration (as a
more structured alternative to email discussions). Of course, the Wiki "home
page" can contain links to the relevant sections of our group home page. (The
URL, by the way, is http://wiki.oasis-open.org/tag/FrontPage.)
So:
I suggest that you post the meeting minutes on the group home page while
Victor and I work on the Wiki.
Thanks...
Serm Kulvatunyou wrote:
I
will post this on the Wiki once I know the URL. For the time being, here it is
the minute for 2007-05-17 call.
Thanks,
Serm
----------------------------------
Participants:
Jacques
Durand
Serm
Kulvatunyou
Hyunbo
Cho
Kevin
Looney
Mary
McRae
Patrick
Curran
Paul
Rank
Victor
Rudometov
Vladimir
Rudometov
Stephen
Green
Summary of action
items:
-
Everybody posts example test
assertions that they know of.
-
Everybody posts
questions/challenges/concerns on the wiki for future
discussions.
-
Everybody posts related works on
the test assertion specification/guideline.
-
VR
and PC will report more about Wiki.
-
Discuss meeting
schedule on the
email.
-
Discuss F2F
meeting.
- Discuss about Web-based sharing
tool.
PC: May have suggestion and
sponsoring of another web-based sharing tool.
- Discuss
about scheduling
JD: Another option to resolve the
time difference is to have two meetings at different times such as 11am EST
and midnight EST. The latter one would allow participants from
Far
East to participate. However, there
might be an issue with
the voting.
PC: Alternate the time
every week. All important agenda items will be
discussed on both meetings. Results of
discussion from one
meeting will be posted on the
Wiki for additional comments.
HC: Prefer to have
just one conference and the current time is okay for
him.
- Wiki - as a collaboration
platform to alleviate time differences.
PC: Not
recommend to use Wiki for editing
the specification. It is better to
use it for a specific piece of
work or for managing issues
list.
PC: Propose that VR be the wiki
master.
VR: Will take a
look closer at the Wiki and report to the group next
time.
- Face to Face
meeting
PC: St. Petersburg is
proposed.
JD: Let’s exchange more emails
about this.
- Scope
and
readership of the specification
VS: MSFT XPS
specification is an example - http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/downloads.mspx. Entity
under tests are for example classes, parameters in java, complexType,
simpleType in XML.
JD: So you mean to
start from looking at
existing test assertions for existing specifications like java and try to
abstract from there.
PC: And think about what else
are not covered
by
those existing materials.
JD: Homework for everyone
is to share existing TA that they know of.
PC: Suggest to post
questions/challenges about TA on the Wiki/mailing
list. This will help
scope. Hope to have something more
than just rewording
statements from the specification.
OTOH, also think that
the
TA spec should be simple enough to be used
by specification developers.
VS: Is test coverage computation
in the scope?
PC: It is out of
scope, our work should
provide a ground for test coverage analysis
though.
Serm: Agree. Test
coverage needs the mapping b/w TA and Test Case. Since we have no
test case, we can’t do test coverage.
JD: TA= how to
verify a spec requirement (assuming an abstract-enough test
model)
VS: For simplicity I suggest to use COVERAGE=number of
tested test assertions.