[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 P3P...." 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 help. Ciao, Rex 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 >P3P. > >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 >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency -- 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]