[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivityand Interpretation.
This is fairly standard practice for several Standards Development Orgs, using RFP 2119 from IETF, where the specific meanings are detailed. Cheers, Rex Gilmore, Timothy wrote: > > All, > > Some of the things we look at are objectivity and subjectivity due to > our accreditation under the American Association for Laboratory > Accreditation (A2LA) for NIMS STEP and IPAWS Conformity Assessment > (CA) testing. Many elements under the OASIS EDXL suite of standards > including CAP use words such as “SHOULD” and “MAY” which are clearly > subjective in nature. One of our engineers pointed out some issues > that we should keep in mind when going over the EDXL-DE 2.0 document > during the F2F. > > For CAP: > > /What we're looking for are rules or constraints that are open to > interpretation, or not fully specified, rather than being completely > "nailed down."/ > > / / > > /For example, consider the <circle> element. Is the following a > "correct" <circle> element?/ > > / / > > / <circle> 0, 0, 150000000 </circle>/ > > / / > > /It certainly fits the descriptions in that element's comments: (1) > it's in the form "latitude, longitude, radius"; (2) the central point > conforms to WSG84; (3) the radius value is expressed in kilometers; and/ > > /(4) it is a properly escaped XML string./ > > / / > > /Then again, the radius of the circle is approximately the distance > between the Earth and the Sun. Note that the given definition includes > the word "geographic" (twice!) and that the center of the circle is > specified as longitude and latitude, all of which indicates to me that > the circle ought be to Earth-bound. Someone else may interpret the > standard differently, and the standard doesn't put a real limit on the > radius of the circle./ > > / / > > /The point is that the standard doesn't really specify enough for a > tester to determine whether or not a <circle> element is conforming./ > > /The tester has to make up his (or her!) own rules to complete the test./ > > /Multiple testers will certainly come to different conclusions, and > all will be correct to within the subjectivity allowed by the standard./ > > / / > > /(And that all said, note that the given example doesn't match the > form given in comment 1; the comma between the longitude and the > radius is missing. Since all of section 3 of this standard is > normative, this is a bug in this standard.)/ > > / / > > /For another example, consider the <senderRole> element. The standard > says "OPTIONAL, MAY use multiple." Despite the words "OPTIONAL" and > "MAY," an individual tester can determine without a doubt whether a > given message contains zero or more <senderRole> elements, and an > infinite number of testers (all else being equal) will come to exactly > the same conclusion./ > > Perhaps something to think about at the F2F. > > Thanks, > > *Timothy D. Gilmore* | SAIC > > Sr. Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS Support Center | > > IPAWS CA / NIMS STEP > > phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2025 > > mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: gilmoret@us.saic.com > <mailto:gilmoret@us.saic.com> > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email. > -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]