[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: NIMS testing / conformance - input to the discussion
Thanks Tim, All in all, it has been one interesting day. This adds a nice touch. Cheers, Rex At 4:54 PM -0400 9/10/07, Timothy Grapes wrote: >Guys, > >One the call Friday, Elysa asked me to share the testing and conformance >approach that NIMS was piloting for the CAP standard. Attached is the draft >CAP test procedure and a draft test report applying that testing against >DMIS. Approach input was provided by us, Gary and Sukumar at the time, but >the following summarizes some aspects discussed: > > > >>From a standards conformance perspective the overall test must prove >interoperability with one to many other / disparate systems by generating / >sending per the standard and by receiving / showing the information as >understandable per the standard. Both generate/send and receive would check >the same key things: > > > >* XML schema validity (general - valid XML per XML tools) >> I think you have this covered >* XML schema validity per the specific standard > >* All mandatory elements exist in the specified form / format >> I think you have covered whether mandatory elements exist, but not checked >that each element conforms to specified format, code values etc. specified >in the data dictionary. In the "conformance" test, an XML tool will tell >you whether or not the XML is well-formed, but doesn't know whether that XML >matches constraints / formats of the standard. >* All optional elements exist in the specified form / format >> We discussed testing them all even if the vendor doesn't plan to use them >all - same checks as mandatory elements. Then if a vendor decides to use an >optional element they don't have to repeat testing. >* Element cardinality (test multiple vs. single instances of elements) >> Has the procedure confirmed that multiple values are not present where not >allowed, and that they are accommodated where multiples are allowed? >* Overall message / XML structure per the standard (overall message >structure / cardinality of message segments) >> Same as the element cardinality issue only at the segment level >* Business Rules as they are specified at any level of the structure >(e.g. overall message, specific segments, specific elements) >> I don't think I saw any checking against business rules of the spec - >those that exist for CAP may only be at the element levelŠ > > > >Gary had also added: > >What the schema test does not do is also very important. > >1. Does not validate that the strings for <polygon> and <circle> are >properly formed and represent real locations. > >2. Does not check to see that the <references> tag content is properly >formed. > > > >There are probably a couple of others, but I would have to research the spec >again to be sure. Basically, if the Schema calls for a string, but the spec >puts some rules on the formation or structure of the string, there is >nothing in the schema to check that those rules are enforced. > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Tim > > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.13/998 - Release Date: 9/10/2007 >8:48 AM > > -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]