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

Re: New Definitons for Glossary

From: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:13:05 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
The following are examples of test assertions developed for the XML Test 
Suite. I basically developed these semantic requirements guided by the 
statement that a semantic requirement should be a simple statement that 
capture an expected normative behavior, as defined by the specification, 
that also facilitates the generation of  specific testcases and proper 
mapping back to the assertion and the specification.

                 A document consisting of prolog followed by element then 
miscelaneous items is
                 a well-formed document.

                  A well formed document must have one or more elements.

                 A processing instruction with only a processing 
instruction target name
                 is a valid processing instruction.

                 The character data in the CDATA section is not markup data.



At 12:46 PM 4/15/2002 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Thanks for this, Mark...
>At 11:28 AM 4/12/02 -0400, Mark Skall wrote:
>>[...] I've provided some definitions for these terms.  I couldn't find 
>>any formal definitions cited elsewhere, but these are how we generally 
>>use these terms at NIST.  If anyone would like to modify these 
>>definitions, please respond to the e-mail.  If there are no suggested 
>>modifications, Karl, please enter these into the glossary.
>>Generally, test assertion, semantic requirement and test requirement are 
>>used interchangeably.
>This is one point that interested me, because sometimes I suspect that 
>they are being used for different things (e.g., one refers to an 
>identifiable actual statement or statements in the specification, and 
>another refers to a "testable assertion" that is synthesized from one or 
>more statements in the spec).
>>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)?  How does a TA relate to actual 
>identifiable content in a specification, etc.

Sandra I. Martinez
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

(301) 975-3579
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 10:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:26 UTC