Subject: Re: [office] Another view on conformance?
Dave Pawson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 02/28/2009 10:35:00 AM: > > Usual ducking and diving Rob? > > 2009/2/28 <email@example.com>: > > Dave Pawson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 02/28/2009 02:59:25 AM: > >> > >> http://tr.im/gRUC > >> > >> Rick Jelliffe on Conformance, with a view on ODF. > >> including: > >> <quote>Conformance is hard. ISO standards have a constraint that only > >> "verifiable" statements can be made in normative text: no airy fairy > >> fluff. And I certainly belong to the camp that says that the clauses > >> in IT standards (in particular document standards) should not only be > >> "verifiable" but that they should be objectively and automatically > >> verifiable in standard ways. </quote> > >> > > > > Certainly no disagreement with that. Normative statements must be > > testable. And given a choice between something that requires manual/human > > judgement to test and something that can be tested automatically, choose a > > formulation that can be automated. And given a choice between something > > that can be automated in a novel way (say an ad-hoc schema definition > > language) versus something that can be automated using an existing > > standard, e.g., a standardized schema definition language, then go with > > the standard technique. > > > > However, on the last point I think it is something we aspire to but not > > always achieve. > > It's hard in a couple places, so don't do it at all? > > What are you afraid of? > It isn't a question of fear. It is a question of mathematics. If you have a way test whether given number is random, using Relax NG, XML Schema,or Schematron, then I'd love to hear about it. -Rob