OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[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]