[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and Interpretation.
All, Just a little more to think
about at the F2F for subjectivity for our testing purposes (as required): Here's a list of EDXL-DE "inadequacies"
(which includes elements for which tests are subjective) of EDXL-DE, based on
EDXL-DE v1.0 of 1 May 2006 and included schema file: - <senderID>, comment 3: uniqueness of
domain names is guaranteed by the internet domain name system, but anyone can
create a message with a <senderID> of president@whitehouse.gov - <dateTimeSent> should require a timezone
indicator - as specified, <combinedConfidentiality>
is untestable because <confidentiality> is a human-readable string with
no restrictions - <senderRole>, <recipientRole>,
<originatorRole>, and <consumerRole> all specify that
<valueListUrn> be the URN of a published list of values and definitions,
but "published" is not defined - I appreciate the value of this extensibility,
but it does put a strain on testing - <explicitAddressScheme> is not testable
beyond simple syntax checking - <circle>: - comment 1 says "the form
"latitude, longitude, radius," but the example omits the second comma - without explicit limits on radius, it's
impossible to know whether "<circle> 0, 0, 150000000
</circle>" and "<circle>0,0,0</circle>" are
good or not - there is no representation given for
<digest> and the schema specifies xsd:string (base64? hex?) There is a whole other level of things that are
difficult or impossible to test because the standard simply specifies a message
container rather than any sort of protocol. For instance, how long does a
message originator wait for an acknowledgement before re-sending a message? What's the difference between a
<distributionType> of Report and that of SensorDetection? Timothy
D. Gilmore | SAIC Sr. Test Engineer | ILPSG | IPAWS CA / NIMS STEP phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2025 mobile: 606.219.7882 |
email: P Please consider the
environment before printing this email. From: emergency-return-2271-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:emergency-return-2271-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Gilmore, Timothy All, Some of the things we look at are
objectivity and subjectivity due to our accreditation under the American
Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) for NIMS STEP and IPAWS
Conformity Assessment (CA) testing. Many elements under the OASIS EDXL suite of
standards including CAP use words such as “SHOULD” and
“MAY” which are clearly subjective in nature. One of our engineers
pointed out some issues that we should keep in mind when going over the EDXL-DE
2.0 document during the F2F.
What we're looking for are rules or constraints that are
open to interpretation, or not fully specified, rather than being completely
"nailed down." For example, consider the <circle> element. Is
the following a "correct" <circle> element? <circle> 0, 0, 150000000 </circle> It certainly fits the descriptions in that element's
comments: (1) it's in the form "latitude, longitude, radius";
(2) the central point conforms to WSG84; (3) the radius value is expressed in
kilometers; and (4) it is a properly escaped XML string. Then again, the radius of the circle is approximately the
distance between the Earth and the Sun. Note that the given definition
includes the word "geographic" (twice!) and that the center of the
circle is specified as longitude and latitude, all of which indicates to me
that the circle ought be to Earth-bound. Someone else may interpret the
standard differently, and the standard doesn't put a real limit on the radius
of the circle. The point is that the standard doesn't really specify enough
for a tester to determine whether or not a <circle> element is
conforming. The tester has to make up his (or her!) own rules to
complete the test. Multiple testers will certainly come to different
conclusions, and all will be correct to within the subjectivity allowed by the
standard. (And that all said, note that the given example doesn't
match the form given in comment 1; the comma between the longitude and the
radius is missing. Since all of section 3 of this standard is normative,
this is a bug in this standard.) For another example, consider the <senderRole>
element. The standard says "OPTIONAL, MAY use multiple."
Despite the words "OPTIONAL" and "MAY," an individual
tester can determine without a doubt whether a given message contains zero or
more <senderRole> elements, and an infinite number of testers (all else
being equal) will come to exactly the same conclusion. Perhaps something to think about at the
F2F. Thanks, Timothy
D. Gilmore | SAIC Sr. Test Engineer | ILPSG | IPAWS CA / NIMS STEP phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2025 mobile: 606.219.7882 |
email: gilmoret@us.saic.com P Please consider the
environment before printing this email. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]