W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: New Definitons for Glossary

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:53:22 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020416092446.02958ec0@rockynet.com>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Mark,

Two points:

First, what I wanted to suggest is that we can be as verbose as we like in 
QA Glossary definitions.  Look, for example, at the definition of 
"equivalent" in WCAG 1.0 [1], or numerous among the first 10 definitions in 
the UAAG glossary [2].  So I'd include in "test assertions" all of the 
clarifications you offered (below) in reply to my questions, and maybe even 
some focused example(s).  Verbose is better than terse.

Second, see embedded comment in the example below...

At 03:27 PM 4/15/02 -0400, Mark Skall wrote:
>[...]
>
>No, the way we use them, they all refer to testable 
>assertions.  "Requirement" by itself typically refers to a statement in 
>the specification but we use "test requirement" or semantic requirement" 
>to mean a testable assertion.
>
>[...]
>
>>>Test Assertion
>>>A set of premises that are known to be true by definition in the spec.
>>
>>I think it would be helpful if the definition were less terse.  What does 
>>one actually look like (e.g., example)?
>
>
>A test assertion could be almost anything. The style and the syntax is 
>quite different depending upon who develops them.  I've provided 2 
>examples from some test assertions we're developing to test a Smart Card 
>specification.  The first is for a "normal" case and the second is for an 
>"error" case that we've discussed in the last e-mail thread.
>
>Assertion 2.1

I'm not sure that I see a statement of the test assertion in here, but then 
again I'm unfamiliar with the technology.  This looks like a Test Case 
description, for a test assertion which is referenced as "assertion 2.1", 
but not actually stated below.   (You could guess at what assertion 2.1 
might say, by putting together bits of the TP and ER:  "If a good card is 
inserted into a specified reader, a gscBsiUtilCardConnect() call shall 
return the return code BSI_OK").

But sorting out this particular example is probably irrelevant.  *If* we 
were to include example(s) in the definition of TA, they should come from 
familiar W3C standards.  You (at NIST) have plenty of that from XML work, 
DOM work, etc.


>Purpose: To test gscBsiUtilCardConnect() using a good card inserted into a 
>specified reader.
>
>Scenario:
>1.      A valid card is in a particular reader available to the candidate 
>SPS.
>2.      A gscBsiUtilCardConnect() call is made to the SPS, with
>•       uszReaderName == a pointer to a string containing the reader’s name
>•       unReaderNameLen == an unsigned long variable containing the length 
>of the reader’s name
>•       hcard == a pointer to the unsigned long variable hcard1.
>Expected Results:
>3.      The call returns
>•       the return code BSI_OK
>
>hcard1 == a valid handle.
>[...]
>>How does a TA relate to actual identifiable content in a specification, etc.
>
>It is derived from the requirement in the spec and should be traceable 
>back to that section of the spec.

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#glossary
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#terms
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 11:53:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT