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

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

Also, there are two notions in TA anatomy discussions that I suggest we
keep distinct:
- the base TA model
- convenience aspects

Saying that the "IUT (or subject) is part of the TA" (like all
discussions about what parts should be found in a TA) is a modeling
decision. But when writing concrete TA instances, it does not mean that
every single TA must always describe all these parts, e.g. describe the
IUT. 

Besides the TA model, the TA guideline doc could talk about convenience
features that will ease the concrete representation of TAs. For example,
in order to avoid having to repeat many times the description of the
same part across many TAs, there could be something like a "global"
section that describes what is common to several TAs (we have talked
about this). E.g. all TAs about specification requirements for an API,
could share the same IUT e.g. the API implementation. Or, a global
section might contain "rules" for figuring out what the TA part is for
each TA, e.g. "For all TAs related to this API, the IUT is the smallest
object class implementation that contains the API function exercised in
the TA." 
I'd propose that we keep such convenience features outside any basic
discussions on the TA model: they may be introduced after as "variants"
that do not really conflict with the model.

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk [mailto:stephen.green@systml.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 4:41 AM
To: tag@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tag] Notes from 11/7 meeting - Anatomy Version 06

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


>




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php