Re: [office] Another view on conformance?

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 02/28/2009 10:35:00 AM:

> 
> Usual ducking and diving Rob?
> 
> 2009/2/28  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> > Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 02/28/2009 02:59:25 AM:
> >>
> >> http://tr.im/gRUC
> >>
> >> Rick Jelliffe on Conformance, with a view on ODF.
> >> including:
> >> <quote>Conformance is hard. ISO standards have a constraint that only
> >> "verifiable" statements can be made in normative text: no airy fairy
> >> fluff. And I certainly belong to the camp that says that the clauses
> >> in IT standards (in particular document standards) should not only be
> >> "verifiable" but that they should be objectively and automatically
> >> verifiable in standard ways. </quote>
> >>
> >
> > Certainly no disagreement with that. Normative statements must be
> > testable.  And given a choice between something that requires 
manual/human
> > judgement to test and something that can be tested automatically, 
choose a
> > formulation that can be automated.  And given a choice between 
something
> > that can be automated in a novel way (say an ad-hoc schema definition
> > language) versus something that can be automated using an existing
> > standard, e.g., a standardized schema definition language, then go 
with
> > the standard technique.
> >
> > However, on the last point I think it is something we aspire to but 
not
> > always achieve.
> 
> It's hard in a couple places, so don't do it at all?
> 
> What are you afraid of?
> 

It isn't a question of fear.  It is a question of mathematics.  If you 
have a way test whether given number is random, using Relax NG, XML 
Schema,or Schematron, then I'd love to hear about it. 

-Rob