RE: [tamie] Updates on lts xml for input to script compiler, some questions about monitoring for condition guard values...

["Moberg Dale" <dmoberg@axway.com>]

Dale, (asks Stephen)

Just to seek clarification of what might seem obvious - I gather
the goal is to treat an ebBP as being a kind of test assertion
(or set of test assertions) about the collaboration(s). Is that
right: Are we aiming to test the exchanges for conformance to
the ebBP?

<Dale>

I actually wondered whether the way to proceed would be to transform the
BP into TAG style assertions. That might also be possible. I have not
followed up on that question; is there a standard way to take TAG and
end up with ETSL? If there is, I suspect that there might be a way to
XSLT our way to TAG style assertions.

I think TaMie is trying to see whether the events on the board provide
an "execution trace" for a process. If the events do that, then the
events would conform with the process model (or selected aspects of it)
specified by the ebBP.

If by "conformance" you mean to say something about the
implementation(s) that are producing events, there may be quite
different approaches to assessing whether the implementation conforms
with the specification.
I am not certain that gathering an execution trace (or even many of
them) establishes conformance with the specification. 

Validation of the implementation (with respect to a specification)
drifts more into "proving" that under whatever conditions that satisfy
the implementation's description are ones where the traces that are
produced are ones that satisfy the specification. Often these
derivations require reasonably powerful logics (with mathematical
induction support, for example, possibly over "big" ordinals) But I
digress.

In TaMie, we are testing or verifying implementations for conformance,
but not validating them (which in accordance with some linguistic
communities, would need something like a derivation of the specification
assertions from some properties of the implementation...)

Anyway, I think I would need to understand your usage of conformance,
and also clarify what is being said to conform with what, to be
confident that I am addressing your question. I am afraid my brain is a
bit too cluttered with a bunch of distinctions to provide a simple
straightforward response.

Maybe a discussion on the call would help?

</Dale>
Secondly, is there anything else we would want to test using the
derivatives of the ebBP? Perhaps in combination with some other
configuration documentation - such as business criteria (like no
orders being over 1000 USD) - or is that out of scope for uc3?

<Dale>
It seems to me that we could add test assertions for business rules
connected with the specifics of the collaboration. Certainly worth
investigating. 

But these rules would not in general be extracted from the ebBP (except
that the timeouts are associated with how long an "offer" is extended.
Monica M or Jamie C can elaborate on how these business/tort law sorts
of considerations are partly captured in ebBP) UNCEFACT (TMG maybe?)
used to have an initiative for capturing BRs of the sort you mention
(real TPAs) but I am not certain the group completed a full ratified
open development procedure.
<Dale>