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


Sounds like a winning plan to me! Thanx for pitching in and taking this
on.

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 09:51, Rex Brooks wrote:
> 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
-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency



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