- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:02:40 +0100
- To: <steven@semeiosis.com>, <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Steven > I certainly understand this pragmatic - It simply suggests that > the issue is a broader one and that we do in fact need a standard > approach industry wide. Zed is now an ISO standard, for example. > I see nothing wrong with the W3C issuing a recommendation about > the form of language specs - since it is the users of the spec > that will benefit from such consistency. The Web Services Description Working Group uses Z notation to formalise the WSDL specification, see: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-z.html#znotation In essence this is something of a new adventure for the W3C, owes much to the work of Arthur Ryman (IBM), and should provide valuable experience from which other Working Groups may learn. As said during the workshop, I question the value of applying formalisation after the event, given so much of its value seems to be in finding bugs and inconsistencies at a point in time when they can be easily be fixed. However, I am interested in the potential application of a formal model in generating and assessing the coverage of test cases. Paul
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 13:06:13 UTC