|step...@systml.co.uk||Jul 30, 2007 4:45 pm|
|Durand, Jacques R.||Aug 13, 2007 1:28 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 14, 2007 12:46 am|
|Durand, Jacques R.||Aug 14, 2007 11:01 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 14, 2007 11:16 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 14, 2007 11:25 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 14, 2007 1:19 pm|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 14, 2007 1:54 pm|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 14, 2007 2:40 pm|
|Durand, Jacques R.||Aug 14, 2007 5:42 pm|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 14, 2007 11:34 pm|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 15, 2007 9:43 am|
|Serm Kulvatunyou||Aug 16, 2007 8:50 am|
|Serm Kulvatunyou||Aug 16, 2007 9:36 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 16, 2007 10:54 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 16, 2007 11:41 pm|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 17, 2007 11:07 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 18, 2007 12:05 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 18, 2007 1:41 am|
|Dave Pawson||Aug 18, 2007 2:37 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 18, 2007 3:24 am|
|step...@systml.co.uk||Aug 20, 2007 10:38 am|
|Subject:||Re: [tag] Test Assertion Modeling - comments, etc|
|Date:||Aug 15, 2007 9:43:19 am|
Mmm. I guess we are tending to a conclusion that some aspects of the SBS example are not likely to become test assertions. On the other hand, some aspects might still benefit from an attempt to consider how to reword the spec item to facilitate the writing of a test assertion. At some point that rewording starts to look a bit like a test assertion but not enough like one to actually be regarded as one. Then to make it into a TA it is necessary to structure it according to an accepted TA pattern and, here I get a bit lost, maybe do a bit more than just structure it...?
Does the pattern structure provide enough to make a spec item into a TA? If not what else is needed (given this SBS example)? But if so then maybe the spec item could be so structured anyway couldn't it? Wouldn't that improve the spec item in some way? So could the TA structure we come up with (hopefully) not also take on a role in spec production a bit like docbook (which at least UBL TC uses for its specs of late)? Maybe it would be a matter of even taking docbook and adding a TA extension or profile (if docbook allows for that). I think OASIS has some XSLT to turn docbook into a spec. Maybe that could be adapted to recognise TA inclusions in the docbook XML and handle it appropriately.
Back to the SBS example though, I'm a little apprehensive about the way a necessarily vague conformance clause might impact on TAs. I guess there are all sorts of way of implementing a markup standard for instance (look at all the types of products which variously implement HTML, XHTML or docbook for example - browsers, XSLT apps, mappers, editors, pdf generators, office apps, etc) and each would perhaps need a different conformance clause and consequently different TA lists to test such conformance. Or the conformance could be defined just as schema validity and the products left on their own to work out how they should otherwise conform and produce TAs themselves with the potential loss of interoperability, etc. I'm a bit worried that a trend to make TAs as part of standard design might either be biased toward just the most obvious types of implementation and ignore future innovation and that it might therefore make conformance too specific and rigid with such applications in mind. Not a problem so much for APIs though where the conformance is almost exclusively a matter for applications and therefore TAs are more predictable and clear cut. Maybe this is a groundless concern though - after all XForms seems to be suited to its W3C test suite despite XForms being a markup language and not an API.
-- Stephen Green
Partner SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606
Quoting Dave Pawson <dave...@gmail.com>:
Having to rethink the idea of test assertions for this SBS rule -
From your comments it appears that you are trying to use a test assertion for all levels. I'm clear that's not right.
At some level a Turing complete language will be required. It's unreasonable to lump all this into a declarative assertion statement(s).
The document which conforms to the spec, a UBL SBS document, is a kind of spec itself - it specifies some business, whether a payment that needs to be made in conformance to an invoice or a supply of goods or services in conformance to an order. The spec is kind of saying with this SBS rule that certain specified parts of that document should be regarded as informative only. Now how on earth can you test for that? :-)
If it's informative it's not tested? Tests only test firm requirements. Further, only requirements which are verifiable.
At some point a clear scoping document/paragraph/section will be needed to draw a line above which TAG is not interested.
From this thread I'd suggest that the line is close, but below, the application layer?
-- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk