RE: [tag] Updated UML Diagram for Seoul F2F Dec 2008 Draft of TA Markup

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

That looks great Stephen.
That also reminds me we'll need to set the "rules" we had in mind for
using this schema, as they could not all be expressed in the schema
itself. Like:
- target element, and predicate element, can only be absent from a test
assertion element if this TA is within a  test assertion set the header
of which has a "shared" element that specifies these elements either in
the TestAssertionParts or in the Rule subelements.
(so users will not be mislead by all these "optional" elements)

Also did we really mean the Predicate (and the Prequisite) to be
multiple? If this multiplicity has the semantics of a logical
conjunction then it would be clearer to use a single expression that
makes this conjunction explicit (with AND connectors).
The only reason I can see we may want to keep it multiple is in case of
a restricted profiling language that does not allow for expressing
logical conjunctions. Or to make it easier to display / enter parts of a
predicate or prerequisite expression in a user interface.
If we profile this for Xpath, then I think it is very likely the profile
will require a single Predicate or Prerequisite expression per TA
(easier to process with XSLT...)

Cheers,
Jacques 


-----Original Message-----
From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen Green
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:48 AM
To: TAG TC
Subject: [tag] Updated UML Diagram for Seoul F2F Dec 2008 Draft of TA
Markup

Here I've improved the diagram by filling in some missing cardinalities
and also changed the TestAssertionSet..TestAssertionSet recursive
cardinality to 0..*.



2008/12/18 Stephen Green
<stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>:
> I have created a UML diagram roughly representing what was agreed in 
> Seoul at this month's F2F. I made a few simplifications for the sake 
> of clarity and to fix minor aspects of the initial schema (such as the

> Tag element, adding Name and Value, and some of the other naming).
>
> The schema need not exactly match this of course; for example this 
> class diagram ignores complex types in most cases and makes most 
> elements local rather than global, with just Test Assertion Set and 
> Test Assertion being global. This is a suggestion but also simplifies 
> the diagram somewhat.
>
> Best regards
>
> --
> Stephen D. Green
>
> Document Engineering Services Ltd
>
>
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
>