Re: Markup for testable assertions

I'm sorry but I'm having an understanding gap: can someone give an example
of a simple testable assertion?



"Amelia A. Lewis" <> on 03/27/2003 01:27:36 AM

To:    "Martin Gudgin" <>
cc:,,, Sanjiva Weerawarana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
Subject:    Re: Markup for testable assertions

Can the xmlspec DTD be enhanced, either experimentally or locally to
WSD, to include a <testable> or <assertion> element?

This would, of course, also require a modification of the xmlspec.xsl
stylesheet to handle the assertions.

My preference would be that the testable assertions appear in the
document itself, and that they be marked as testable assertions.  I
would then like to see the stylesheet automatically generate an appendix
on conformance, which would extract the 'tags' (an email message MUST
have lines of no more than 998 characters plus CR and LF) and generate a
hyperlink to the assertion in context.

More below ...

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:40 -0800
"Martin Gudgin" <> wrote:

> This mail is intended to start a discussion about testable assertions
> and associated markup in our spec. Here are some thoughts/questions:
> 1.  Would it be better to have a section in the spec with all the
> assertions in. And reference those assertions from their 'location' in
> the spec itself? Or would it be better to 'sprinkle' the assertions
> throughout the spec?

Sprinkle.  Consolidate in appendix.

> 2.  Do we want the assertions to appear in the spec itself or is
> there a separate stylesheet which emits the assertions?

Assertions SHOULD be part of the normative text.  The stylesheet SHOULD
generate an appendix which consolidates all of the assertions into one
easily referenced section.

> 3.  Do we want 'classes' of assertion? Seems like whereever we have
> things like MUST/SHOULD/MAY then we have an assertion. Seems also we
> would want to capture the distinction in the markup.

Seems like a good idea.

> 4.  Some assertions are captured in the schema. For example the fact
> that wsdl:import and wsdl:include must appear before wsdl:types

This is also in the text, is it not?  In fact, the text is far clearer
on the subject of required sequence, I believe.

> 5.  Some assertions are captured in the schema for the 'single WSDL'
> case but not in the 'multiple WSDL' case. For example, the uniqueness
> constraint on the local name of port types is enforced by the schema,
> but in the face of wsdl:include you could end up with a collision,
> which would be an error.

But the assertion appears in normative text as well, does it not?

Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 15:09:54 UTC