RE: [REVISED] My user experience of the user experience workshop

Paul,

One of the benefits for after-the-fact formalization is that the spec can 
be used as input to specs built on it. For example. it would have been 
handy to have a Z formalization of XML,  Infoset or XSD so I could refer 
to the definitions from the WSDL. 

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



<paul.downey@bt.com> 
07/01/2005 09:02 AM

To
<steven@semeiosis.com>, <mike@saxonica.com>
cc
<www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Subject
RE: [REVISED] My user experience of the user experience workshop






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