This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1059 - Parsing the definition of specification
Summary: Parsing the definition of specification
Status: RESOLVED REMIND
Alias: None
Product: QA
Classification: Unclassified
Component: QASpec-GL (show other bugs)
Version: LC-2004-11-22
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Karl Dubost
QA Contact: Karl Dubost
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-26 14:56 UTC by Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Modified: 2005-04-28 11:53 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-01-26 14:56:35 UTC
I found it difficult to parse and understand the definition of 
specification.  It says "...interface to accomplish a task."  But 
interfaces are static, passive entities.  They don't accomplish 
anything.  Perhaps "for accomplishing a task" would read better, but 
even that feels uncomfortable.  What task does XML accomplish?  (It is 
used for many more things besides machine-independent data interchange.)

I'm not sure that this phrase is necessary at all.  Saying that "A 
specification is a set of technical requirements which define a reliable 
interface." seems adequate.  If really necessary to qualify "interface", 
then "interface between actors" is what I'd suggest.

On the same sentence, though less important, the phrase "which aim at 
..." is one of those unnecessary phrases (like "in order to") that are 
best removed.
Comment 1 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-03-07 17:40:39 UTC
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Mar/0018.html
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1059 suggests that our
definition of specification is hard to parse; firstly, because it's not
in proper English, with a suggested rewording:
"""A specification is a set of technical requirements which aim at
defining a reliable interface for accomplishing a given task"""
(instead of "to accomplish") that I think is good.

Then the commenter argues that an interface can't accomplish anything -
it's passive entity; of course I agree that an interface can't
accomplish anything, but I think the new sentence only says that the
interface defined should be reliable for accomplishing a given task. So
unless anybody disagrees, I suggest simply changing "to accomplish" into
"for accomplishing".

(I plan to send several editorial issues proposals, that I think should
be formally adopted in batch during next week teleconf - but discussing
them beforehand on the mailing list would help that a lot)

Dom
Comment 2 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-04-08 08:42:36 UTC
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/21-qa-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: to use ISO's definition of "specification" for SpecGL and ViS,
referencing ISO Guide 2-4

ISO definition: 
Specification: document that prescribes requirements to be fulfilled by a
product, process, or service. 
Comment 3 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-04-28 11:53:52 UTC
setting version to LC in case of future use