Re: [tag] Current issue with "TA for properties"

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Done.

see http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32623/TestAssertionsGuidelines-draft-1-0-4.pdf
for PDF version

2009/5/21 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>:
> Plus I made some further editorial changes to the section on
> grouping using tags to make it fit with this prior section which
> now introduces tags a little in advance.
>
> I will upload this work as draft 1.0.4
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
> 2009/5/21 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>:
>> I've edited the section on property test assertions so that it now
>> reads as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> Test Assertions for Properties
>>
>> Requirements addressed by test assertions may be related to specific
>> properties of a target. Assume there are specification requirements
>> that define under which conditions a widget qualifies as
>> “medium-size”. In other words, widgets do not come with a sticker that
>> makes this categorization obvious by announcing small / medium /
>> large. Instead, the size label is a property that is itself defined in
>> the widget specification and that is subject to verification, like any
>> other normative statement. In such a case, when writing test
>> assertions, it is not a good idea to consider this property as part of
>> the definition of the target category as in the case widget-TA101-1a
>> and widget-TA101-1b, because the category of a widget could not be
>> identified prior to doing any test on this widget.
>> Assume that the following requirement defines the “medium-size” property:
>> [requirement 104] “A widget that weighs between 100g and 300g and is
>> from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension, is a
>> medium-size widget.”
>>
>> There is a major distinction between requirement 104 and requirement 101:
>> requirement 101 uses “medium-size” as a prerequisite: its predicates
>> only concern widgets that are already established as medium-size.
>> requirement 104 defines how to qualify a test assertion as medium-sized.
>>
>> The test assertions for requirement 104 can be written as:
>>
>> TA id: widget-TA104-1
>> Normative Source: specification requirement 104
>> Target: widget
>> Predicate: [the widget] weighs between 100g and 300g.
>> Prescription Level: mandatory
>> Tag:normative_property = medium-sized
>>
>> A tag, “normative_property = medium-sized” is assigned to convey that
>> the test assertion evaluation relates to the property ("medium-size").
>>
>> TA id: widget-TA104-2
>> Normative Source: specification requirement 104
>> Target: widget
>> Predicate: [the widget] is from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer
>> dimension.
>> Prescription Level: mandatory
>> Tag:normative_property = medium-sized
>>
>> The test assertions widget-TA104-1 and widget-TA104-2 will be used to
>> derive test cases that verify if the property "medium-size" applies to
>> some widget. A "false" outcome for their predicates is an indicator
>> that the medium-size property does not apply. It is not indicative of
>> a violation of the specification itself. Such test assertions are
>> called in this document "Property test assertions" to distinguish them
>> from test assertions that are used as indicators of conformance to a
>> specification. However, both types of test assertions are designed in
>> the same way, with a predicate that indicates whether or not a target
>> satisfies some feature or property.
>> There is no mention of the “medium-size” property in the predicates of
>> test assertions ‘widget-TA104-1’ and ‘widget-TA104-2’. This is because
>> this property is precisely what needs to be established by a test
>> suite containing test cases that are derived from these test
>> assertions. Only when a target (here a widget) evaluates to “true” for
>> these two test assertions, will it be considered medium-size. These
>> test assertions are only concerned with the nature of these tests, not
>> with how to interpret their outcome.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/5/21 Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>:
>>> Stephen:
>>>
>>> I was indeed the one most in favor of doing this prefixing of the prescription level :-\
>>> Realized that this does not work in general...
>>> The tag appears to be the most flexible way: adding a new TA element might open a new can of worms.
>>> I believe actually that it is good to not relate tightly the prescription level to the "intent" of the TA (here a property), which may change or may be more relevant to a combination of Tas.
>>> Let us discuss this next week.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Green
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:21 PM
>>> To: TAG TC
>>> Subject: Re: [tag] Current issue with "TA for properties"
>>>
>>> I've not been quite convinced that there was a clear case for putting the property definition in the prescription level. I'm still a little uncertain about merely using a tag but it seems better than overloading presription level so unless anyone objects I will include this in another draft (along with some very minor rewording Jacques has suggested offlist).
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> 2009/5/20 Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>:
>>>> A medium technical issue with the current TAG draft:
>>>>
>>>> In section 3.3 "TA  for Properties":
>>>>
>>>> We recommend to mention the property ("medium-sized" ) in the
>>>> Prescription
>>>> element:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prescription Level: medium-sized:mandatory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because we want the prescription level to be associated with the
>>>> definition of this property.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [requirement 104] "A widget that weighs between 100g and 300g and is
>>>> from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension, is a medium-size widget."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suggestion: instead of this, use a tag for expressing the association
>>>> of the TA to the property:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prescription Level: mandatory
>>>>
>>>> Tag: normative_property = medium-sized
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rationale:
>>>>
>>>> - very close association between the Property and the Prescription
>>>> level (as currently suggested) is a bad idea: it seems to suggest that
>>>> the TA "widget-TA104-1" MUST evaluate to true (mandatory) for the
>>>> property to be verified.
>>>>
>>>> But that does not work if  [requirement 104] has "or" instead of "and" :
>>>>
>>>> [requirement 104] "A widget that weighs between 100g and 300g OR is
>>>> from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension, is a medium-size widget."
>>>>
>>>> In that case we only want to indicate that the two TAs involved are
>>>> related to the definition of this property, nothing more, as you could
>>>> still satisfy the property even if you fail either TA. The
>>>> Prescription level should only reflect the wording in the requirement,
>>>> not be interpreted as a conformance statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - a "normative property" should ultimately not be treated differently
>>>> from a conformance profile. In both cases we don't want the
>>>> Prescription level to be too closely associated with the profile or
>>>> property (which may require a more complex combination of TAs, to be
>>>> verified). Using a Tag is more appropriate for such a loose
>>>> association, whcih has simply the value of an annotation (grouping) with no other formal semantics.
>>>>
>>>> - The TA could be associated with several properties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>