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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-msg message

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

Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Compliance Tests

Thanks, Allen,

I think I understand, and as long as we stick to

>"... it is only to assist implementors (not act as a
>certification process), and ideas on how to craft this should start to
>take form. It really is nothing complex. Take a look at what other
>standards have done (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/#validators) -
>especially those that have written validators for CSS, HTML/XHTML, or

I have no difficulty addressing such a suite of assistance tools, 
guides, etc. and I think examples, tutorials, validators, and best 
practices (like asking that there be a criteria for usefulness that 
is clear even if unofficial). I'm up to my neck in a primer right 
now, so I have at least some understanding of this thicket that may 

At 11:31 PM -0500 10/28/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>Fair enough questions, so let me try to address...
>First, the request to deliver the compliance test suite is actually part
>of the Charter for the EM TC
>(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency/charter.php). It was to
>be delivered in Q3 2003 to support our first standard's effort, which
>ended up being CAP.
>Your next question seems to revolve around expectations, which ties to
>your thoughts/comments around how it should be cited for use - ie: is it
>some kind of certification authority. This is somewhat of a two part
>question, so let me answer the later first.
>As for its intended use, per the Charter, it is "to assist
>implementers". It is in no way suppose to be some authority on
>certifying a CAP message as "legal" - its not a certification suite. Its
>only a compliance suite. Hold this thought, and I will come back to it.
>When it comes to expectations, you guys (MSG SC) are really the ones
>best equipped to answer that question - not the TC. In other words,
>during the test and demo, what would have helped you? What kind of
>guidelines, or maybe even some basic validation tools, would have
>allowed you to see if your implementation worked as the spec intended?
>Did you find SHOULDs or MAYs that "SHOULD" be used, but didn't have to?
>For instance, I generated a "minimal" CAP message using XML Spy the
>other day, it basically has nothing useful in it. So, while it was an
>XML document that would have validated against the CAP schema, it
>provided no useful information.
>Ok, now couple the experience you guys had during the demo/tests with
>the fact that it is only to assist implementors (not act as a
>certification process), and ideas on how to craft this should start to
>take form. It really is nothing complex. Take a look at what other
>standards have done (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/#validators) -
>especially those that have written validators for CSS, HTML/XHTML, or
>Just think about what you would have liked to have had during your
>test/demo, and go from there. Again, this may be a document outlining a
>testing process, or it could be a tool (like the ones at the W3C). To
>get your minds stimulated, I would think the following ideas might be a
>good place to start:
>1. XML Validation: nothing more than validating (upload) an instance doc
>against the schema for starters. Over time if we identify transports to
>support, this could have various "interfaces" for those transports.
>Think of a Web Service you could send a CAP alert too, for example.
>2. GIS Display: this maybe something the GIS SC can help
>recommend/provide, but basically a place you could upload a CAP alert
>with GIS info and see it displayed on a map. Allow people to see how it
>looked, and if it made sense.
>3. Variation of Art's EDIS Demo: something distributed via Java Web
>Start that allows you to browse to a local CAP alert, rather than grab
>off a server, and see it displayed in the application.
>Clearly you can go wild with variations of these, and do all kinds of
>things that will be helpful for implementors. You guys are the CAP
>experts, so I would recommend you pick a couple of areas you feel are
>important and go from there.
>Hope this helps - Allen
>On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 15:14, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>  Hi Allen,
>>  I was asked by the message and notification subcommittee to draft
>>  this message to you concerning the action item from the TC, as it was
>>  referred to in the msg-sc mtg today, to design or consider what might
>>  be required for a "compliance" test suite for CAP.
>>  To make sure I understood what was meant by "compliance" I went to
>>  the TC page and looked under Action Items, and did not find a
>>  specific item of this name or effect. So I reviewed the minutes, and
>>  also did not find a reference. There was a discussion about the
>>  operational and/or "intent" tests that have already been done, but no
>>  specific mention of what is or was meant by designing or developing
>>  or discovering requirements for CAP "compliance" tests.
>>  One of the reasons why I volunteered to take on the task of writing
>>  this message is that I have some familiarity with a conformance test
>>  suite that has been devised by the Web Services for Remote Portlets
>>  TC. So I, at least, know something, as little as it is, about this
>>  particular topic.
>>  No one was able to really narrow down what was expected for this test
>>  suite. I mentioned that WSRP tested "MUST" assertions In the WSRP TC
>>  a test suite that has been developed by IBM based on the work of the
>>  Conformance Subcommittee, which is its own entity, rather than a part
>>  of another subcommittee.
>>  That's about the extent of what I know, outside of some of the ins
>>  and outs of what is tested for. However, as far as I can tell all it
>>  tests for is if an application conforms to the spec. It does not
>>  "certify" that an application is compliant or conformant. So, insofar
>>  as testing at all is concerned, it is not intended to be cited for
>>  public purposes, at least as far as I know.
>>  My sense of the consensus of the Messages and Notifications SC is
>>  that we do not have enough of an idea of what is needed or wanted in
>>  a compliance test suite. So, we suggest that asking Karl might be the
>>  wisest course of action for a number of reasons.
>>  Not least of these reasons is that there may well be OASIS-wide
>>  policy that bears on the issue or liability concerns over the notion
>>  that a TC might offer formal or informal testing, and what purposes
>>  such testing would serve.
>>  So that is what the Messages and Notifications Subcommittee requests:
>>  Formal guidance from the TC and OASIS on what is needed or requested
>>  in a suite of tests for compliance with CAP. What should be tested,
>>  and to what degree.
>>  Thanks,
>>  Rex Brooks
>R. Allen Wyke
>Chair, OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request

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