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

Re: [qaframe-spec] What is testable?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:45:07 +0200
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <3fe37513.386766671@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Alex Rousskov wrote:
>IIRC, there was a long thread on this mailing list discussing this
>very issue. There were at least two points of view:
>
>	1) It is impossible to define "testable" precisely.
>	  Statement X is "testable" when there exists
>	  a finite algorithm/procedure that correctly,
>	  with sufficient probability, assesses
>	  the truthfulness of X. What is sufficient
>	  or even finite is impossible to define precisely.
>
>	2) It is possible to define what "testable" means.
>	  No workable definition was provided though.

If the QA WG does not attempt to define "testable", this should be made
explicit in the document, e.g., "This specification does not define what
it consideres testable". The definition does not have to be precise, it
could also be defined in broad terms, you could for example say that
something is testable if one could reasonably expect conformance testing
software to proof it.

This would of course limit the scope of "testable" to software which is
not necessarily intended by the Specification Guidelines (in which case
I would suggest to choose a better term as "tests" are commonly
perceived as involving automated process; if specification A requires
specification B to make a statement C the requirement could be
considered "testable" by reading specification B, but I would not refer
to this "test" by "I have tested B for C").
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 19:45:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT