W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2003

Re: OpsGL QA-commitment-group

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:56:31 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 12:17 AM 5/8/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>At 08:54 AM 5/7/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>On Wed, 7 May 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>> > CP1.3: Commit to complete test materials. [Priority 3] Conformance
>> > Requirements: the WG MUST commit to produce or adopt a complete Test
>> > Materials before Recommendation, where complete is defined as: at
>> > least one test case for every identifiable conformance requirement
>> > of the specification.
>>I apologize if I missed the discussion about it, but not all
>>"identifiable conformance requirements" are testable and, hence, can
>>have at least one test case. Should "testable" qualifier be added?
>I don't have a problem adding such a qualifier.  Objections anyone?

I object.  The reason is that I don't accept Alex's premise.  Every 
requirement should (MUST) be testable. (In fact, I thought this statement 
was included somewhere in our guidelines) If  a requirement is not 
testable, it should be reworded to be testable or be eliminated from the 
specification.  If it can't be tested, it can't be verified that it was 
done correctly and is, thus, of no use.  Adding the suggested qualifier 
would sanction having non-testable requirements.


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 Friday, 9 May 2003 09:57:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC