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

RE: testability definition

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:13:37 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020909141044.02a873a0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 10:33 AM 9/9/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>
> > I think the definition is fine as it is - after removing
> > "cost-effective".
>
>What is your definition/interpretation of "to check that requirement
>has been met"?
>
> > We may want to add, A testable specification uses concrete terms and
> > measurable quantities, and avoid words such as "works well", "looks
> > good" or "shall usually happen".
>
>This is not related to the core discussion but please note that
>"concrete" itself need to be defined for such an addition to have any
>value. Also, "works well" and "looks good" is perfectly fine as long
>as "well" and "good" are defined by the spec.
>
> > Additionally any ambiguous requirement is not testable.
>
>Again, "ambiguity" needs to be defined.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is . . .

In all seriousness, we must rely on the intelligence of our readers.  These 
words all in the Dictionary.  If we don't want the spec to read as a novel 
(Alex, your words - and I agree) we can't go around defining perfectly 
clear "unambiguous" words.

Mark


****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 14:07:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT