Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Draft Interoperability and Conformance TC formation proposal (0.2)

["Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 12:05 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> wrote on 07/24/2008 11:56:12 PM:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:37 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > The following activities are explicitly not within the Scope of the
> OIC TC:
>> >
>> > Acting as a rating or certifying authority or agency for conformance
> of ODF
>> > implementations;
>> > Authoring or distributing software that tests the conformance or
>> > interoperability of ODF implementations;
>> >
>> Ok what is the point of the TC then.  Distributing software that tests
>> the conformance or interoperablity is kinda a key requirement.
>>
>> It removes the means to do "state of ODF conformance and
>> interoperability (March 1st, 2009);" with correctness.
>>
>> How can you find out how conformance and interoperability is going if
>> you cannot send out tests.  Its going to be a complete yes sir it
>> works everywhere limited tested and all.  Acid Tests have there place
>> to make sure results found in controlled testing match real world.
>> Distributing software is kinda key to Acid Testing to make sure
>> results in reports are correct.   Worst case is if a application has
>> failed and failed in lab conditions and shows up in Acid Testing that
>> it works fine.  Cause was that you lab had a damaged copy of the
>> application.  Acid testing is a key part of the process.
>>
>
> OK.  Let me give a few examples of what I think is in scope and what
> isn't, and maybe someone can suggest a better way of expressing it.
>
> In Scope: producing and distributing 1,000's of test documents in ODF
> format, accompanied by a document that explains how to conduct a
> conformance test using these documents.
>
> Out of Scope:  A test harness written in C++ that automates the loading,
> testing and reporting of these test cases with OpenOffice.
>
> In Scope: An Acid-like test of ODF in the form of one or more ODF
> documents.
>
> So the operative word here is "software".  Although members of the TC are
> certainly free to produce and distribute software that makes it easier to
> execute tests with their ODF implementation, this "glue" would be out of
> scope for the TC's official work.
>
> So please let me know if you disagree with that in principle, or whether I
> just worded this unclearly.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
Closer in scope.  All parts need to perform a Acid like test.  Like
list of approved PDF printers and screen capture software if needed.
Ok it has to be something the person need to run the Acid test and get
the results we need.

If network operating parts appear in ODF needing to test them will at
times need some software.  Like if ODF adds a common online document
transmission format.   We would then have to be able to test that
applications were doing that right.   Basically rules have to be left
flexible so we can cope with what the 99 version ODF standard could
throw up.

My basic rules for the software.

Production of software for performing tests fine.

Tests can be operating system dependant and be fine as long as details
allowing the same test to be build for other platforms is provided and
there was not a equally good platform neutral way of doing it.

Production of software to compete directly with implementers not fine.

Production of software built only to work with only 1 implementation
or a really selected group of implementers of software not fine.

Production of software not needed for testing also not fine.

Distribution tests and there relegated software fine.  Treated no
different to shipping documentation to help users and implementers.

Ok now how to do you write that into rules.  Its called allowing
future flexibility we cannot be sure exactly where ODF will end up.

Ok if someone manages to build a automated loading system that is
implementation neutral that is fine.   But I don't think that is going
to happen.  If someone pulls it off good to them.  Sorry for snapping
seamed so logical to me.

Peter Dolding