Re: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Jacques,

I would be disappointed if the requirements didn't change after my 
initial submission as the reason I submitted them was to get them by a 
wider group of pros.  You guys have done an awesome job on the editorial 
side.  It is quite gratifying to see such a large chunk of work come 
together in such a short time, eh?!

I have to apologize for not being as "gung ho" on the work items the 
past couple of weeks.  I've been juggling this with a proposal I'm doing 
for Regrep 3 which has a deadline similar to this one, only with less 
participation.  I'll make it up by doing all of the nasty merging work 
that needs to happen at the end of the process.  Maybe I'll cheat and 
use my company's transformation tool :-)

Mike: let me know when you consider the CVS copy golden.  I'll get to 
work right away.

-Matt

On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 11:06  AM, Jacques Durand wrote:

> Of course, ebXMLGlobal (Matt) contribution to the MS Test Reqs should 
> not be forgotten:
> Matt provided the first cut at a list of Test Requirements, hope he 
> does not mind the follow-up massaging :)
>  
> Once the test requirements are finalized, that is good enough for MS TC 
> release,
> but not yet for an MS Conformance test Suite: we will need to add the 
> Test Cases definitions, and profiles definitions...
> I think that for Version 0.1 (internal TC review) we don't need all 
> test cases: just a representative sample.
>  
> While Mike / Matt finish-up the Test Reqs, I'll give a first shot at 
> Test Cases and submit to the list (anyone interested too?)
> I just want us to agree on the format of Test Cases, before going 
> further.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> jacques.
>  
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kass [mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:30 AM
> To: Jacques Durand
> Cc: 'ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs
>
> At 08:12 PM 7/9/2002 -0700, Jacques Durand wrote:
>
> Mike:
>
> Great milestone, you have been key to all this !
> and thanks to all who gave comments.
> I see the following cosmetic remaining changes before we
> have something to submit to MS TC (do we all agree here?):
>
>
>
> [MIKE] - Thanks also to XML Global for providing the initial test 
> requirements that
> we have been massaging :)
>
>
> - consolidate all these Levels in a single test req document that
> ignores the notion of levels, yet keeps the organization of test reqs 
> by spec modules,
> only for the sake of ease of browsing.
> (levels/profiles would be defined separately, not needed for MS TC 
> submission)
>
>
>
> [MIKE] - I agree.
>
>
> - renumber each test req item (ID) (Matt can help on this he said?
> Note: if we use a pure sequential numbering, we should not change them 
> later
> as these will be referenced everywhere, and yet we should not expect 
> them to remain
> contiguous in the test req doc, as we may have to add/remove some test 
> reqs later based
> on feedback.)
>
>
>
> [MIKE] - I will leave the "merging/restructuring" of the 3 test 
> requirements documents and
> XSL stylesheet to Matt, as he has volunteered to do the resequencing of 
> the test requirements.
>
>
> - remove from this final copy the "Coverage" attribute (would go to the 
> annotated spec)
>
>
>
> [MIKE] - This is a simple stylesheet change, as far as rendering in 
> HTML.  However, the "coverage"
> attribute is a valuable piece of information we may want to keep in the 
> original XML document...
>
>
> Is that fine with everyone?
>
> Regards,
>
> jacques
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kass [mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:46 PM
> To: Jacques Durand
> Cc: 'ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs
>
> Jacques and all,
>
>     Here are the latest versions of levels 1,2 and 3 ebXML MS 
> Conformance
> Testing Requirements.
> Incorporated are changes ( and a few not ) based upon comments.  Further
> modifications based
> upon discussion is possible ( but we seem to be iterating to a 
> conclusion :)
>
>     I am also  attaching comments to Monica's and Jacques comments (
> already sent out comments
> for Michael Wang's post ).
>
>     All my comments begin with [MIKE3]
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
--
Matthew MacKenzie
XML Global R&D
PGP Key available upon request.