RE: Spam: Re: [tag] About Prescription levels

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

>Why not then just 5 values:

That sounds sufficient to me. Also missing, other keywords mappings:

For REQUIRED -- 'mandatory'
for NOT RECOMMENDED -- 'preferred not'
Etc.

regarding:
for MAY -- 'optional'
I have a slight preference for the initial suggestion from Patrick:
"permitted". Because "optional" is already - when capitalized - used as
a RFC2119 reserved keyword (raising question why do we elect this one
out and not others?), and also I feel "permitted" contrasts better with
"preferred" which is in fact also about an optional (yet preferred)
feature...

I think that if we try to go deeper into giving more meaning to the
prescription level (e.g. w/r to conformance to spec) we'll get into a
rat hole...

That is why I am also bringing back the notion of "outcome
interpretation" on the table, because if there is a need to be more
specific about what the TA outcome means w/r to the specification
fulfilment, I'd rather leave that to another TA element other than
"prescription" which was supposed to only capture the original info in
the spec if I recall.

Cheers,
Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk [mailto:stephen.green@systml.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:38 AM
To: tag@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Spam: Re: [tag] About Prescription levels

How about this example:

"The button MUST NOT have colors black and blue together or red and
green and grey together or red and white and a color other than orange."

Negating this to allow for a positive prescription level does seem
problematic. The problem is the 'and', 'or', etc along with existing
negation.

Isn't it a problem that

A AND B

when negated is

Not A OR Not B

when so many forget and write 'Not A AND Not B' (or at least I sometimes
have done while in my early programming days).


Why not then just 5 values:

For MUST -- 'mandatory'
for MUST NOT -- 'not permitted'
for SHOULD -- 'preferred'
for SHOULD NOT -- 'preferred not'
and for MAY -- 'optional'

Then we can put simply, in prose without being forced to use a logic
expression like Not(A AND B):


"The button does have colors black and blue together or red and green
and grey together or red and white and a color other than orange."

PL: 'not permitted'

--
Stephen D. 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