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

["Stephen Green" <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Yes, regarding both points we do need to state the rules we
decide. We kind of thought that there would be a rule that the
multiple occurances of predicates and prerequisites would only
be used to say the same expression in more than one way.
Then an expression using XPath, say, could be accompanied
by the same expression in prose and perhaps stated in several
languages - with a '@language' attribute for each perhaps - but
that attribute isn't (yet) included in the model/schema. This is
where we especially felt, I recollect, that we need to add rules
to the schema. I guess we'd express these in prose of course.

Best regards and best wishes for 2009

Steve

2008/12/31 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
>>
>
>



-- 
Stephen D. Green

Document Engineering Services Ltd



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