raw list of comments addressed after the 2 public reviews

For review in today’s call.

Needs some polishing, e.g. more clearly distinguish:

- Author name.

- Specifications concerned.

Jacques

---------------------------- TAG-1

This issue tracks the 2010-03-18 Public Comment from Dave Pawson at

<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag-comment/201003/msg00000.html>.

There are two issues:

1. A production error in section 2.2 of the Guidelines that has a broken cross-reference/link

2. A question about finding the semantics for the TAML elements

RESOLUTION:

2010-04-27 Discussion]

1. We agree that the first is editorial and we can handle that

2. In discussion, the TAML does not have examples and any explicit semantics.

We talked about how much redundancy there is between the model and the semantics.

We discuss whether the TAML should duplicate the semantics and how much.

There was also discussion about keeping the TAML and Model formal, and using the guidelines.

We should avoid over-specification is also discussed in the Markup and we might -- give examples good,

being restrictive and over-specifying, bad.

Decision to do a cross-reference to the model and an outline about that,

<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201004/msg00003.html>.

---------------------------- TAG_2

This comment is from Dave Pawson on 2010-03-30 at

<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag-comment/201003/msg00008.html>.

Related to the previous Issue, TAG-1, this follow-on comment is about the acceptability

of cross-matching from TAML to the Model for Semantics if the Semantics are there.

RESOLUTION:

2010-04-27 Discussion]

Covered as part of the resolution of TAG-1

---------------------------- TAG-3

This third Public Comment from Dave Pawson objects to the use of a separate Model document and a

TAML document that profiles it, rather than having a free-standing self-contained document.

RESOLUTION:

Close with no particular action - TAML document indended to be separate and dependent

from TA model specification.

However, better referencing to the TA model will be introduced -

more detailed and explciit semantics will also be added to TA model as resolution of

---------------------------- TAG-8

Ths is the Public Comment from Stephen D. Green, stephengreenubl@gmail.com, on 2010-05-08,

<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag-comment/201005/msg00001.html>.

"I think it would be good to support the model with an RDFS or OWL artefact as this would be a useful reference

when dealing with the markup. If this can be added in time, it could be that the table mapping between the markup

and model could refer also to the RDF or the like."

RESOLUTION:

2010-06-09: We agreed to defer this beyond the current specifications.

[ Show » ]

Dennis Hamilton added a comment - 09/Jun/10 05:48 PM 2010-06-09: We agreed to defer this beyond the current specifications.

---------------------------- TAG-7

Public Comment from Stephen D. Green, stephengreenubl@gmail.com, on 2010-05-06:

<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag-comment/201005/msg00000.html>

Discusses bindings to the TAML and how that could facilitate testing. Considers RDF and SPARQL,

difference over using XPath, other considerations.

RESOLUTION:

2010-06-09: We are considering this a little beyond the level we are at right now.

Jacques notices that there is an OWL for the TA Model that is interesting and we could post that

and down the road we can consider that we have an OWL appendix to the Model to allow RDF assertions related to TAs.

We propose to defer TAG-7 at this point. That is agreed without opposition.

[ Show » ]

Dennis Hamilton added a comment - 09/Jun/10 05:47 PM 2010-06-09: We are considering this a little beyond

the level we are at right now. Jacques notices that there is an OWL for the TA Model that is interesting and

we could post that and down the road we can consider that we have an OWL appendix to the Model

to allow RDF assertions related to TAs. We propose to defer TAG-7 at this point. That is agreed without opposition.

---------------------------- TAG-6

an implementation of the TA Model specification is currently too narrowly defined in the conformance clause :

"a representation of the test assertion model" itself (i.e. a language or notation such as a markup language).

That excludes actual sets of test assertions that are modeled based on this specification, and that may even

not use a formal language. Users such as SCA TC who have written entire sets of TAs after the TAG model,

should be able to provide a successful "statement of use" as required in the standardization process.

RESOLUTION:

The conformance clause need to broaden the definition of a conforming implementation:

Two classes of implementations of the model could be defined (instead of just one (1)):

(1) languages or notations that represent the test assertion model described in Section 3

and Section 4,

(2) actual instances of test assertions that follow the modeling principles and semantics

described in Section 3 (and Section 4).

---------------------------- TAG-4

This public comment, made on 2010-04-14, is not stated as specific to one of the three TAG documents:

<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag-comment/201004/msg00000.html>.

The request is for a good example up front and for a better way of depicting the XML.

That seems to be about the TAML specification.

RESOLUTION:

[2010-04-27 discussion]

We agree that a nice compact and better-known way of depicting what the elements are

like is desirable and we're for some existing practice, whether RelaxNG, simplified/compatc RelaxNG.

We're thankful for the comment and are taking on how to do this.

We also want to show some simple examples, and some examples, perhaps ones in the Model.

This takes more thinking.

tag message