[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tag] ambiguity in current TAG draft
I agree the last example does not *need* a negative prescription level > > > normative source: x MUST NOT do y > > target: x > > predicate: [target x] does y > > prescription level: not permitted > The above is correct use of the *negative* prescription level > > > Which so far we do not endorse. > > > > while: > > normative source: x MUST NOT do y > > target: x > > predicate: [target x] does not do y > > prescription level: not permitted > > This second example should instead be: normative source: x MUST NOT do y target: x predicate: [target x] does not do y prescription level: permitted I would not want to push the argument in favour of 'allowing' or 'accommodating' the negative prescription levels too much. However, the main argument in their favor seems to me to be the fact that they do already exist as a standard in the relevant RFC and this is probably for a good reason. After all, they need not exist in specifications either since the requirement could have been written normative source: x MUST not do y But is there *ever* a subtle difference between normative source: x MUST not do y and normative source: x MUST NOT do y ? I suspect there is but that to regard the MUST NOT as redundant in favor of 'MUST not' is probably not going to do much harm. It might be worth endorsing a three-positive-value-only prescription level codelist just for the benefit of being able then to say that a predicate MUST always evaluate to 'true' when fuliflling the normative requirement(s). So I'm happy to drop the argument since there is some benefit in doing so and the benefit of keeping the 'MUST NOT' equivalent Prescription Level and 'SHOULD NOT' equivalent is not easy to see or demonstrate. However I have a feeling it does exist in more complex cases - but that can be left to a more advanced treatment of TAs which might endorse the corresponding extension of the prescription level list. Best regards Steve -- Stephen D. Green Document Engineering Services Ltd http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice 2008/11/27 Durand, Jacques R. <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>: > > I think we have an ambiguity in current TAG draft, revealed by the SCA use > case: > > - When a normative statement is of the kind "x MUST NOT do y" , the natural > way (in fact, the recommended way) to write the predicate is: > "[target x] does not do y" > > Then, what should be the prescription level? > (a) MANDATORY? > (b) NOT PERMITTED? > > > (a) is aligned with both our definiions of predicate and of prescription > level in 2.1: > > Predicate > > A predicate asserts, in the form of an expression, the feature (a behavior > or a property) described in the referred specification statement(s). If the > predicate is an expression which evaluates to "true" over the test assertion > target, this means that the target exhibits this feature. "False" means the > target does not exhibit this feature. > > Prescription Level > > A keyword that qualifies how imperative it is that the requirement referred > in Normative Source, be met. See possible keyword values in the Glossary. > > > > (b) is aligned with the Glossary definition of prescription level : > > > > The test assertion defines a normative statement which may be mandatory > (MUST/REQUIRED), not permitted (MUST NOT), permitted (MAY/OPTIONAL) > preferred (SHOULD/RECOMMENDED) or not recommended (SHOULD NOT). This > property can be termed its prescription level. > > > > The problem I see with allowing/recommending "negative" prescription levels, > is that this entices the TA writer to write "negative" predicates (=true > means violation), e.g.: > > > > normative source: x MUST NOT do y > > target: x > > predicate: [target x] does y > > prescription level: not permitted > > > > Which so far we do not endorse. > > > > while: > > normative source: x MUST NOT do y > > target: x > > predicate: [target x] does not do y > > prescription level: not permitted > > > > Would be confusing and sound like a double negation ("not permitted" for > target to NOT do y) > > > > Do we really need negative prescription levels, and if yes how do they work? > > > > Jacques > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]