Re: [tag-discuss] the role of an XML mark-up for TAs

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 27/11/06, Durand, Jacques R. <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> I think so far we have discussed three types of spec/guideline material,
> and we'll have to decide which ones are within scope of a first TC:
>
> 1. A [simple] guide for writing test assertions, the goal of which is to
> provide some basic guidance to most groups and TCs working on a
> specification. This guide contains a model of what a TA is (what are its
> parts, what they mean, how they relate to the spec narrative, examples,
> and to an underlying test set-up, etc.), but in an entry-level and easy
> way ("TAs for dummies"). Some on this forum have stated that this guide
> alone has value.

I see this as having some value, at least to make spec writers aware
that a spec para should be verifiable for compliance.

>
> 2. An XML representation of test assertions. Some purpose for this
> representation should be preferably agreed on, as the design may vary
> depending on whether it is for (a) just a support for the TA guide, (b)
> Web publishing, (c) drive a test suite, (d) help generate test
> suite/test cases.

-0
I really don't see that mandating XML as the way in which tests are expressed
is useful? For some it will be that the XML will be an unecessary wrapper
for simple text.




>
> 3. Test cases and a representation of these.

How might this be a part of the scope? At best these could be
examples, or the test specification for this TC's spec!

I'd prefer to see if
3. A detailed specification of what is allowable and not within specifications,
identification of normative (verifiable) and informative paragraphs.

I.e. a far more specific requirement.
I'm unsure if this would either be acceptable, or writable!



>
> I think that the goal "To get better (verifiable) specs from Oasis."
> will be largely served with (1) above.
This sounds like the first step. How ambitious can the group be?


> (3) really makes me
> uncomfortable... there is already a lot done in this layer, and in
> various forms (e.g. Abbie may be familiar with TTCN-3 in telecom. There
> is also ATML, and more) - so smells like a can of worms to me... and
> lots more work).

+1 on the lots more work if my definition matches the authors.
(though unknown acronyms don't help with understanding).

I'd like to hear more on what is meant by 3 before commenting further.

regards




Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk