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

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

Dale,

If TaMIE would be the right place for looking at how to create TAG
test assertions
which can be transformed into ETSL (eTSM) scripts then it does look
feasible that
all the suitable information for test assertions can be extracted into TAG test
assertions from an ebBP document.

What that would then mean about conformance? I would say (Jacques' opinion
really needed here to verify this or otherwise)
1. the test assertions would help with conformance testing if we
decide that what
we are testing is 'conformance'
2. the test assertions would equally (perhaps more so) help with
interoperability
testing - if we decide that what we are testing is interoperability
The question then is (I think): Are we aiming to ensure that two implementations
are 1. conformant to an ebBP def (etc) or 2. valid according to an
ebBP def to the
extent required for the implementations of the process to interoperate? Maybe
the answer doesn't affect too much what we are doing though. Maybe we are to
cater for both possibilities (if they are different). This is really
what I'm asking: Is
the use case 'uc3' about conformance to a process (as defined by e.g. an ebBP
definition or other process definition based on labelled state
transitions) or is it
about using an ebBP (or other standard document) to test for all those things
defined by the ebBP which are required for interoperability or something else?
Maybe all three.

Best regards

Steve

2009/3/19 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>
>



-- 
Stephen D. Green

Document Engineering Services Ltd



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