[ebxml-iic-conform] FW: ebXML IIC 7/3/2002: Conformance Levels,Profiles and Test Cov erage

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>]

Title: FW: ebXML IIC 7/3/2002: Conformance Levels, Profiles and Test Coverage

FWD to the conform list.

Monica: agree with distinction between profile / levels.
I believe though that Matt "profile" files actually can express both profiles and levels.
In fact, are well suited to levels as well, as several levels need to reference
the same test req item(s).

>Complementary to that, and relevant to our
>discussion, is we support a conformance level as it relates to our test
>coverage (full, partial and none).

Not sure I get this, but I'd add a coment here:
our tests - unless they fully cover the spec - will only give an "indicator"
of conformance (not to be confused with "levels" of conformance!),
measuring in general only a subset of the actual spec reqs.
They define a de-facto, measurable definition of conformance that, even if
not exactly covering  the original spec, will establish common ground rules
for the implementors community, and this alone has great value.
So I'm not too much concerned that we can't cover "fully" the spec.

regards,

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:mmartin@certivo.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:47 PM
To: Michael Kass; Jacques Durand; mkass@nist.gov
Cc: matt@xmlglobal.com; steve.yung@sun.com; prakash.sinha@iona.com;
Monica Martin
Subject: ebXML IIC 7/3/2002: Conformance Levels, Profiles and Test
Coverage

Sounds good.
 
A few comments, though:

*       Conformance level and profiles are two different animals, so I
believe we have to have clear definitions of both. Matt's files appear
to support the profiles concept of that document.
*       As for levels, those are perhaps similar or synonymous to what
portions of the specification are required to "adhere" to the
specification - I am not certain if, in the ebXML IIC context, this is:
core vs additional vs additional optional/recommended.  I would suggest
a clearer definition.  Complementary to that, and relevant to our
discussion, is we support a conformance level as it relates to our test
coverage (full, partial and none).

From the Conformance specification under that TC:

Profiles are used as a method for defining subsets of a specification by
identifying the functionality, parameters, options, and/or
implementation requirements necessary to satisfy the requirements of a
particular community of users.  Specifications that explicitly recognize
profiles should provide rules for profile creation, maintenance,
registration, and applicability.  Appendix B provides additional
information on profiles.

 

Levels are used to indicate nested subsets of functionality, ranging
from minimal or core functionality to full or complete functionality.
Typically, level 1 is the minimal or core of the specification that
shall be implemented by all products.  Level 2 includes all of level 1
and also additional functionality.  This nesting continues until level
n, which consists of the entire specification.

 

I believe this clarity is required for us to adequately access the depth
and success of our efforts, as well as to support the further use and
development (evolution) of the associated specifications, regardless how
much of this detail we provide to the associated work group or technical
committee.

 

Thoughts?

Thanks. Monica