[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]