RE: [tag] My AI - comments on splitting/repositioning of 'Prerequisites' content

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Stephen:

Thanks for posting the new update - we'll discuss it this Wednesday.

Agree with your comment about NOT aggregating again the Tas that we
split had before, in the new 3.2 and 3.4.
So lets reverse these examples to "simple" Tas in both sections.

I would however suggest the following: in 3.1, the objective of which is
after all to illustrate "complex predicates": just after reverting to
the "simple" example that addresses only Req 101 part (1) I would
mention in a NOTE (just after the example TA):

"NOTE: had we decided to address Requirement 101 in a single TA (against
the advice to not do so in 2.2.1), the predicate could have been:
Predicate: IF [the widget] is medium-size, THEN [the widget] uses
exactly one AA battery AND [the widget] uses a battery holder encasing
the battery."

That would illustrate a possibility which I find appropriate for the
"complex predicate" section.

Would that be better?


Also a general editorial comment:

Shouldn't we try to have TA Ids more intuitively related to the
Requirement IDs they address?

For instance, if we have Requirement 101 (with part (a) and part (b)),
then we could decide that all Tas that address 101 should have an ID of
the form:
widget-TA101-xyz
Where we use xyz to distinguish which part of 101 is addressed, and
possibly different variants of the TA.

Cheers,
Jacques




-----Original Message-----
From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen Green
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:51 PM
To: TAG TC
Subject: [tag] My AI - comments on splitting/repositioning of
'Prerequisites' content

I've added my comments on splitting/repositioning of 'Prerequisites'
content:

http://wiki.oasis-open.org/tag/TestAssertionGuidelines?action=diff&rev2=
212&rev1=211

I'm happy with the split and position of the content. I have
reservations about combining TA examples for spec req 100 example as it
goes against our illustration of granularity.
If this is the only way to keep the text clear though I'd accept it,
provided we make a comment to explain this (such as 'for clarity and
simplicity we will revert to handling the example specification
requirement 100 with a single test assertion example ...').

--
Stephen D. Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606
Associate Director
Document Engineering Services
http://www.documentengineeringservices.com

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php