[ebxml-iic-conform] RE: new Test Req doc

Mike 
and al:

 

Comments in line.

Also 
publicizing this thread on our conform sublist.

 

Regards,

 

jacques

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:29 
  PM
To: Jacques Durand; ''
Cc: 
  ''; ''; ''; 
  ''
Subject: Re: new Test Req 
  doc

At 11:50 AM 7/3/2002 -0700, Jacques Durand 
  wrote:

  Mike and al: 
    

Since I have not heard any more comments on 
    
what we discussed last conf call regarding the way 
    
to organize Test Reqs and to define conformance 
    levels/profiles, 
I propose we carry on with 
    it: 

- we would consolidate all Test Reqs in a 
    single (master, or base) file, 
only keeping the 
    organization of req items by spec modules (as currently done). 
  
I'll be happy to do that. I'm currently finishing up level 3 
  requirements, and have
reiterated through level 2 requirements. Will post 
  them tonight.

  - each conformance 
    profile/level would be defined in a separate file 
that complies with Matt's schema. 
This sounds 
  very flexible and powerful.

  - coverage attribute 
    needs to be associated with the spec, not the 
Test 
    Reqs anymore. That means that ultimately we would end-up with 
    
two docs: (1) the master Test Req file, (2)a list of spec 
    sections# 
with for each its degree of coverage by a 
    subset of test req items#. 
I'm trying to get Rik 
    Drummond help on (2). 
  

Just as an idea, I "marked up" a page of the MS spec, with the 
  idea of
highlighting portions that are covered by a requirement ( green = 
  full coverage ,
yellow = partial coverage ).  
The easiest way for 
  someone to interpret how well the spec is covered is
to view the spec 
  itself, with annotated areas pointing to the requirement id, 
and colored 
  according to coverage.  Just a thought.  I've attached an 
  example
spec page.
It is not "pretty", but it would really let MS Tech 
  Committee people know how
well their spec has been covered.
We use this 
  method here at NIST to "mark up" a spec to determine our coverage of 
  that
spec.
[Jacques Durand] sounds quite a good idea. But in addition to the 
  color code, I'd represent 

  
the 
  degree of coverage somehow in a  "print" manner 
  (don't discriminate the color-blind !

  
and also people may want a print 
  version)

  
(e.g. <coverage:FULL>), and maybe add a label 
  qualifying the test req number, 
  e.g. 

  
<testreq:r1.1.6> 
  <coverage:FULL> 
  The 
  MIME Content-Type 
  header for 
  the Header Container MUST have the 
  value "text/xml" 
  in accordance with the [SOAP] specification. 
  <r1.1.7>The 
  Content-Type 
  header MAY contain a "charset" 
  attribute.  
  

  - item numbering (ID 
    field) needs be revised, as it should not reflect 
levels anymore. We could use something like: specmodule# *1000 + 
    item#, e.g. 
6034 means the 34th test req item 
    relating to spec module #6. 
Or it could just be a 
    totally arbitrary number. 

I am OK with 
  this.

  - as in the future, 
    conformance profiles may "override" keywords 
such as 
    RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL, i'd suggest that we express these as 
a separate attribute in the Test Req file, i.e. a separate field 
    (currently 
they are merged with the 
    Assertion). 

The keywords are already expressed as 
  separate attributes. They only "appear"
to be joined to the Asssertion 
  because of the XSL Transformation of the requirements
document.

  Let me know if 
    that's OK with you. 

Regards, 
    

jacques