OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: call Monday 11am PT

Title: call Monday 11am PT


Attached, minutes from last call.

Next call this Monday 15th, 11am PT.


1. Status of MS conformance test suite spec. (Mike Kass editor)
- Status of current draft of MS conf test suite. Proposed modifications.
- abstract test cases : definitions (vs. executable).
- test reqs coverage column review.

2. Test Framework:
- next Test Framework spec updates and maintenance release.

3. Next ebXML specifications:
- BPSS test update (Serm K., Monica M.)
- RegRep test req works (Mike)

4. Report on the "new" ebXML Joint COmmittee:
- latest conf call covered future role of JC, ideas around coordination of TCs,
need for some marketing, compatibility matrix for versions of various ebXML components.
- dissolving the JCC with CEFACT.

5. Users and implementation work:
- Drake Certivo conformance tests status.
- ebMS global interop testing contemplated by ECOM.
- IIC members demo (Test Framework, test suites) at XML 2003, 7-12 December




IIC Conference Call Minutes: Monday, September 8, 2003

Monica Martin (Sun)
Tim Sakach (DrakeCertivo)
Mike Kass (NIST)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond)
Serm Kulvatunyou (NIST)


Steve Yung (Sun)

Minutes taker: Jacques Durand

Time: Monday August 25, 11am PT
Host: Fujitsu 
Toll Free - : 1-800-251-6413 
Toll - : 1-913-905-1400 
Participant code: 598136 


1. Status of MS conformance test suite spec. (Mike Kass editor) 
- Status of current draft of MS conf test suite. Overview of remaining issues. 
- abstract vs executable test cases, how decoupled they can be. 
- do we need more use of "Initiator" actions, to generate various app responses? 
- policy in using of convId in test cases, correlation? 
- conformance profiles or levels 
2. BPSS test update (Serm K., Monica M.): 
- BSI test reqs and test scenarios. 
3. Implementations and demos: 
- feedback on Autotech 
- Drake Certivo test driver status. 
- Korea latest move. 
- IIC members demo (Test Framework, test suites) at XML 2003, 7-12 December 
4. RegRep conformance testing: 
- update from Mike on RR TC test requirement phase, test req guidelines. 


1. Status of MS conformance test suite spec. (Mike Kass editor) 

- Mike Kass : sent out latest version, V0.92. Believes it is now very close to
submission. Consolidated updates from everyone (RefToMessageID clean up, XPath
verifications...) Some filters (test cases) need update.
- Jacques: we have introduced new concepts (abstract test cases) that were not described
in the Test Framework. In addition, abstract test cases introduce a specific syntax 
in the "Abstract Message Content" column. We need to decide where we describe this. 
Normalluy should go in Test Framework?
- Pete, Mike: not necessarily. ebMS BIP also has a notion of abstract test cases, 
differently presented. Should be up to each test suite to use format it likes.
We don't want also to introduce two languages: 1 for abstract, 1 for executable.
- jacques: we should then add an explanation in the conf test suite. Will propose one.
- Jacques: in test requirements, last column is a bit a catch-all comments column.
Should it be renamed comments, or cleaned up a bit. Still several test reqs
judged non implementatbles even by abstract test cases - should we review that once again.
- also should the coverage of test reqs by test cases, be mentioned in test reqs table? 
isn't this better specified in test cases, as test reqs should be entirely written 
from the spec alone, not assuming any test cases yet.
- Pete: this is editorial convenience mostly (column could be added later) people will look
first at test reqs, and they want to quickly know how much is covered by this test suite.
So we'll leave it there.
- Jacques: would prefer to rename logical groups of test reqs, "groupreq-xyz" instead of 
just "req-xyz", as a test req is normally understood as an atomic one.
we have "funreq-xyz" for individual reqs.
- Monica: abstract test cases may not have executable counterparts.
- Pete, Mike: "Initiator" action will be used more, in executable test cases, for geenrating
various app responses. (e.g. manipulating PartiId) other material, e.g. MIME headers,
are out of control as controlled by impl.
- when a message feature is spec-required or spec-forbidden, but not easy to get 
the MSH to generate it, should we still enforce the negative test case? (e.g. check if
the MSH generates appropriate error): consensus is NO if the spec does not explicitly requires so.

2. BPSS test update (Serm K., Monica M.): 
- Serm still working on a test req and test scenarios doc. Was busy at Autotech demo.
- target is 1.05 version. Operational workflow, not modeling.

3. Implementations and demos: 
- Autotech demo went well two scenarios logistics and SCM shoed combination of Web Services
and ebXML, + EDI. SMTP  protocol was demoed, for lower-tier suppliers.
Another demo planned October 6 at GM.
- Monica: will get a "lessons learned" doc.
- Monica: consolidated comments on COvisint ebXML paper, for OAG.
- Serm: next step is demo BPSS.
- Jacques: new Korean ebXML testing initiative claims implementing conf tests for ebMS and
more, willing to share with us. Interested in demoing their testbed at Phil.
- IIC members invited to demo (Test Framework, test suites) at XML 2003, 7-12 December 

4. RegRep conformance testing: (Mike)
- Mike: helping the RR TC to mark-up their spec for test req coverage.
- approach is to not try to cover everything, but identify a subset of spec
and go all the way to test suite for it.
- will draft a test req guidelines.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]