Re: Proposals for next iteration of Test Assertion Markup Language, etc

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Regarding


> 1. add 'interpretation' and 'comment' (like we have in normativeSource)
>     to 'predicate', 'prerequisite' and 'target'
>
>     see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200909/msg00015.html
>

I'm looked into it and it isn't so easy to do this (either needs addition
of an attribute or allowing of mixed type or a completely new structure
for predicate, etc). So I'd prefer to add 'interpretation' and 'comment'
as child elements to 'testAssertion'. Maybe the same could be added
to 'shared' in TA Set somehow too but that could get messy.





On 14/09/2009, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've a few things I'd like to include in another iteration (perhaps after
> tomorrow's meeting):
>
> 1. add 'interpretation' and 'comment' (like we have in normativeSource)
>     to 'predicate', 'prerequisite' and 'target'
>
>     see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200909/msg00015.html
>
> 2. tidy up the Test Assertions Part 2 spec - correcting typos and some
>     of the normative language (there are still a few 'MUST's instead of
>     'shall's
>
> Note: I still need some convincing of a structure where an *attribute*
> value determines whether a TA set shared part overrides or adds to
> the set's TAs' corresponding parts. I cannot see how to do this in the
> schema without anything equally as elaborate as we have in v0.5: I
> cannot see a way to avoid a situation where, if the 'predicate' at the
> level of child of 'shared' has a @mode attribute, it won't also have that
> same attribute available at child of 'testAssertion' level too.It still
> seems
> to me that what we have in 0.5, though complex, is as simple as it can be.
>
> Also, I think we need to start to determine rules for what we have as
> Section 3.2 in the 0.5 spec. Plus I need some confirmation as to whether
> Section 3.3 works for people ('Reserved Tag Names' - for properties and
> spec versions).
>
> Then I guess, since the review is finished, we may, if we agree, need to
> make the Test Assertion Guidelines into
> "Test Assertions, Part 1  Test Assertions Guidelines" (with normative
> language and to put on a path toward committee spec status).
> Plus we need to publish a list of all the comments and our dispostions.
>
> I could take all these as action items if folk agree.
>
> Best regards
>
> Steve
>
> ---
> Stephen D Green
>


-- 
---
Stephen D Green