See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Jul/0006.html
CS: don't see any objections nor comments
RESOLUTION: add new internalNotes element to the schema
<scribe> ACTION: CS to add the new internalNotes to the schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Add the new internalNotes to the schema [on Christophe Strobbe - due 2008-07-22].
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2006/tests/tracker/
CS: how I tell the tracker the action is done?
SAZ: you can edit actions in the tracker
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Jul/0003.html
CS: need to document some elements the test
samples were using
... they have been added to the metadata description
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/usingTCDL#metadata
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42683/batch1/
CS: several abstentions
<Christophe> Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42683/batch1/results
SAZ: We may need to go one by one
... people abstain instead of raise concerns
... Try to see what are the issues one by one
... the poll is open, so people can change their votes
CS: the reviews make open questions intead raise issues
<shadi> "Suggest changes to the review results (please elaborate below)"
SAZ: the problem is that "not sure" is not a
valid review result
... the review was not finished
... there was an issue with the review itself
... in some cases you may disagree or suggest changes to a review
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to review with Tim his reviews [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Review with Tim his reviews [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-07-22].
<shadi> ACTION: Shadi to change the 4th option in the WBS survey to "Suggest changes to the review results (please elaborate below)" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Change the 4th option in the WBS survey to \"Suggest changes to the review results (please elaborate below)\" [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-07-22].
SAZ: now #16
... 2 abstains 1 disagree from CS
... let's see why
... some issues look more related to the content review
CI: agree, but the review criteria ask for checking if they are accurate
SAZ: difficult to totally separate structure
and content review
... the idea was that structure can be done automatically
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to improve the word accurate in the structure review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Improve the word accurate in the structure review [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-07-22].
CI: move the comments on description and purpose from the structure review to the content review on test sample #16
<scribe> ACTION: CI to move the comments on description and purpose from the structure review to the content review on test sample #16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Move the comments on description and purpose from the structure review to the content review on test sample #16 [on Carlos Iglesias - due 2008-07-22].
SAZ: somebody need to update the test samples with the new internalNotes element
<scribe> ACTION: CS to move the information of techComment to internalNotes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Move the information of techComment to internalNotes [on Christophe Strobbe - due 2008-07-22].
<scribe> ACTION: CI update the structure review once the test sample has been updated [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Update the structure review once the test sample has been updated [on Carlos Iglesias - due 2008-07-22].
SAZ: now move to #18
... basically the same
CS: there is a new comment about pointers consistency
SAZ: this was raised in the ERT WG and there
was a resolution to create some guidelines
... may put this on hold now and come back later
CI: what about separate the review process into automatic and manual?
SAZ: it's more about neutral interpretation than about been automatically tested or not
CI: may need to record these general issues somewhere to be aware of them
CS: there is something like that in the wiki
... the brainstorming corner
http://www.w3.org/2006/tsdtf/BrainstormingCorner
SAZ: CI can get back to the group when the pointers guidelines are done
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/usingTCDL
CI: this solve this specific issue but what
happen with others?
... we can also use internal notes
SAZ: can be this done automatically?
CS: yep
<scribe> ACTION: CS add on internalNotes for every test case that the use of pointers should be reviewed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Add on internalNotes for every test case that the use of pointers should be reviewed [on Christophe Strobbe - due 2008-07-22].
CI: it's better to have an individual
internalNote with a specific ID for each issue
... for example the pointers issue can be ID="1"
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ to update the using TCDL document to say that pointers will be updated in the future [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SAZ
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to update the using TCDL document to say that pointers will be updated in the future [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Update the using TCDL document to say that pointers will be updated in the future [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-07-22].
SAZ: don't lose your heart, this is the first one but next ones may be easier
CS: next teleconference?
SAZ: try the next week
... would like to finish the first batch