RE: [tag] Notes from 11/7 meeting - Anatomy Version 06

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

I strongly agree with the following from Jacques but even if the IUT
wasn't singled out in the TA as a separate piece of logic I think the
wording or expression of the TA would be bound to include it, unless
it was very clearly implicit (or if the 'applies to' was included in a
TA grouping in some way). As in my earlier email I think it semantically
corresponds to the 'Subject' of the TA predicate, even if it isn't
called "IUT". I agree too with Jacques' implication that there may be
a more course-grained conformance target which might belong outside
of the TAs. Maybe this latter point is the main thrust of the comments
made on the call, as minuted.

Jacques wrote:

"< JD> I think there are good reasons to keep the IUT in TA, as mentioned
in the meeting: as a "fine-grained" conformance target, it often does
not match the target of a conformance clause which usually is a
"product" , or a process, or a service (W3C QA framework).

For example, a TA may target a "message", or a "signature", or a UDD
entry, like in WS-I profiles. But the conformance clause will target the
Web service instance that generates this message, or the SOAP stack, or
the entire UDDI instance.

As for levels of conformance, etc: I believe these have nothing to do
with the basic model of a TA. They can always be added in the context of
"how this TA must be used". E.g. a conformance clause will define
conformance levels, and may always say: "TA 123 applies level 3 and
above". This does not affect the definition of the TA itself, w/r to the
addressed spec requirement. </JD>"



-- 
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice


>