1. For the BPSS testing we want to test
the correct choreography implemenation, BPSS parameters (as related to
choreography) implementation. By choreography, I mean the ability to interact
and maintaining the state of collaboration correctly. Does this pretty much
capture the BPSS testing requirements at the very abstract level?
2. Those parameters
related to MSH settings is likely to be factored out (such as confidentiality
- if you look at the attached paper we discussed the vertical testing from
the technology perspective. I think that this kind of configuration
parameters fall into such vertical test. Here we are interested only in the
horizontal test). Does this make sense?
3. I think that if we can formalize the
BPSS semantics model (again only the choreography part) we should be able to
write test requirements for BPSS. I also think that these test requirements will
be associated with a few simple BPSS scenarios. BOD testing will be separated
from choreography checking. Although in BPSS testing we may need some simple BOD
to create desired scenario for testing, e.g., one that cause negative result.
Does this make sense?
I will update our collaboration with Korean testbed about
this matter.
Thank you,
Serm
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 4:44
PM
Subject: [ebxml-iic] next meeting Monday
(agenda), and vote result
All:
I am pleased to (belatedly) announce
that the two following specifications
have been voted Technical Committee
specifications:
- The Basic Interoperability Test Suite Specification V1.0 (for
ebMS V2.0): APPROVED (yes:10, no:0, abstain:1)
- The EAN-UCC instance: APPROVED (yes:10, no:0, abstain:1)
We still
need to format these to the official OASIS doc style: each editor will do
that.
(Mike: you can ask Pete on the
"cleanest" way to do that.),
and I will
post them soon on site (apologies for the messy web page: it has not been
cleaned up yet
after the move to Kave
system, will do)
Detail of the votes is (as a chair, I
decided to not vote as there was no tie,
though I could have given it is an email ballot).
For BIP spec / EAN-UCC spec:
Eck, Jeffrey
yes/yes
Tim Sakach yes/yes
Kass, Michael yes/yes
MacKenzie,
Matthew yes/yes
Turpin, Jeff yes/yes
Mukkamala,
Himagiri yes/yes
Wenzel,
Pete yes/yes
Yung,
Steve yes/yes
Hatem
El-Sebaaly yes/yes
Martin, Monica
J. yes/yes
Van
Lydegraf, Eric on leave
Gomez Aaron
abs/abs
2. Next IIC meeting: this Monday Apr
21, 11am PT , updated agenda:
Host: Fujitsu
Toll free: 1-877-801-2058
Intl Number:1-712-257-6652
Passcode: 309951
----------- Agenda:
(A). Wrapping up our TC specs, publishing and
formatting issues,
references
to associated material (e.g. test scripts docs).
- how to publicize this, leverage JMT, make OASIS
press-release? (Monica)
(B). TestFramework, using it for more
than MS testing:
- what is
missing for extending to BPSS (Serm K., Tim S., Mike)
- for testing Registry? for integrating CPPA?
- making it more versatile:
SOAP vs. ebXML configurable?
(C)- Update on current Implementation
work for the TestFramework:
o
TestFramework, update on implementation (Mike Kass, DrakeCertivo/Tim
Sakach)
o Koran work and demo
at OAG: KwareSoft Inc.
o
status/availability of these efforts (ref implementation? open source?)
o .NET adapters for ebXML:
(D)- Test Center initiatives of eBES,
OAG-NIST, ECOM, and which role IIC could play :
o recent interop tests from ECOM.
o promoting IIC test suites / test framework?
Act as coordination between these centers,
e.g. for common interoperability baseline?
o Update on OAG-NIST meeting
Apr 15-17,
(E)- ebXML MS conformance test
suites:
o restarting the work
on this: status, what remains to be done (Mike, Jacques).
(F) London face-to-face:
- agenda
- who can go?