RE: [tag] Groups - TA Anatomy V0.4 (AnatomyTA-v04.doc) uploaded

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

>>A test assertion ignores the keywords MUST, SHOULD, MAY because its
focus is on the 
>> feature to be verified on the item under test.

>I quite disagree with this statement. IMHO a test assertion MUST

The intent behind this ban of RFC2119 keywords was primarily (recalling
here the outcome of the F2F on this topic):

- those keywords, when used in the referred specification requirement
(to be addressed by the TA), have no reason to appear in the TA itself.
In other words, whether a normative statement in the referred
specification is a MUST, SHOULD or MAY, does not affect the way the TA
is written - it only affects the way the result of this TA is
interpreted in  a broader conformance context (e.g. a conformance
profile).

- The TA states an (abstract) test operation, and what is the fail/pass
condition(s). The operation outcome is of predicative nature: either
some effect (behavior or condition) is observed, or not. No room for
MUST, SHOULD or MAY here (unless we have a convincing example where
these help?). Now, an effect that actually occurs (predicate = "true")
can be interpreted as a failure by the TA ("negative" TA) or as a
success (pass). 

Does this clarify the point? It seems we agree that there is a mandatory
nature in the association: {observed effect, TA outcome (fail/pass) }
but it needs not use MUST keyword to be stated.

-Jacques


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