Seoul F2F follow-up

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

All:

 

Thanks first to KIEC for hosting this meeting - great hosting and location !

 

Here is the list of action items we agreed on at the Seoul F2F. Let me know if I missed some.

(there is routine editorial work that I did not count in)

 

The timeline is as follows:

 

- January 7th we have our next meeting (session A). At that time, we should have proposals for all AIs below, communicated to TC members either via wiki or mail list. We approve or modify these proposal. Session B meeting the week after also gives input.

 

- At the end of Jan 7th meeting (and session B week after), the editors (Stephen, Dimitri) should have enough guidance to produce the final PR draft, at least a few days before Jan 21st meeting.

 

- At Jan 21st meeting, we approve the draft as a CD, and approve starting an electronic ballot for voting it Public Review (PR) draft.

If there was some remaining updates requested, we approve these, editors produce new draft within 2 days, and chairs start electronic ballot for both CD and PR for this new draft.

 

- End of January we should have a PR darft ready for general 60-day review. The point is to get it out soon, even if not perfect. Likely "substantial" changes will probably require a second PR review (2 weeks long minimum).

NOTE: before that date, we should have contacted "key reviewers", see AI-Dec-10-08-0012 below. We'll discuss it Jan 7th.

 

Regards,

Jacques

 

------------------------------------------------------ Action Items ----------------------

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0001: [Patrick]

Extend wording on how Test Assertion differs from Test Case,

as appropriate for section 1.1 (a sentence or two). This should help understand

Figure 1, without explicitly referring to it.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0002: [Stephen]

Reword text under Fig 1., so that it helps better understand Fig 1

without explicitly referring to it. There may be too much emphasis on

"Conformance Clause" this early in the guideline. It is possible that

the two main concepts to be contrasted with TA:

Conf Clause and Test Case (covered by AI-0001), need to be more apparent

(bullet list?)

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0003: [Jacques]

In Figure 2, swap Target <> Norm Source, to be more consistent with guideline text.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0004: [Stephen]

Reorder TA items in examples for consistency with 2.1 order and Fig 2 order (after AI-0003).

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0005: [Jacques]

Draft two workflow diagrams inspired from Sun process but more general,

that show examples of where the creation of TAs fits in real workflows

where people design specs and use them for implementation, testing.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0006: [Patrick]

Reword the "benefit #1" in 2.1 (Improving the spec). Don't forget the benefit of

revealing underspecified features - e.g. behavior in case of error

(what error should be generated, by which implementation part, etc.)

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0007: [Patrick]

Introduce an "Audience subsection" in Intro: Why should I read this guide?

(should blend in with the two wokflow diagrams in AI-0004)

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0008: [Stephen]

Implement the 3 prescription levels only decision made at F2F.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0009: [Jacques / Kevin]

Make a proposal for shortening 3.7.2, and clarify some points in this delicate section.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0010: [YoungKon Lee / DongHoon Lim]

Review the latest mark-up proposal, comment on it, publish it internally.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0011: [Tim / Jacques]

Iterate on the "Prior Art" section, improve on some of these points, add some

we know about.

 

AI-Dec-10-08-0012: [All]

Contact some candidate TAG "expert reviewers", even before the Public Review is announced

i.e. around mid-January (target PR date: end January).

- NIST / Lynne

- WS-I / ? Chris Ferris? MSFT?

- SCA test leads (IBM/Mike Edward)

- OASIS TAB (Oracle / Martin Chapman),

- internal reviewers at Sun (Paul Rank to help identify)

- W3C (Dom H.M.)

- OMG (check with Tom Rutt, Fujitsu AB)?

- OGC (?)

- CEN / GITB in EU

- KIEC

- eAC / AFACT

- GS1 / RosettaNet

- ODF (Dave Pawson?)