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

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

<JD> inline,
-jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:53 PM
To: stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com
Cc: tamie@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tamie] Updates on lts xml for input to script compiler, some questions about monitoring for condition guard values...


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.

<JD> Although test assertions are the proper way to "interpret" a specification in a way that allows for conformance verification, I suspect that in the BP world, if the domain is well understood and has its own canonical representation (e.g. LTS) and where conformance has a precise meaning (e.g. an engine must only produces state transition "paths" that are specified in the BP def) then TAG would be of little help in the process of producing executable test cases.  I'd go directly to eTSM generation from the canonical rep (the augmented LTS). I see TAG test assertions here as a way to "specify" the kind of test to be perform - a bluprint. But in order to have TAG itself become a starting point in an eTSM generation process, we would have to "profile" it with a more formal expression language for BP. This might end-up becoming something close to ebBP ;-), so not sure if TAG would help here ! </JD>

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.

<JD> If there are other dimensions to conformance, then Tas may be a good way to capture these. </JD>

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>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php