RE: Markup for testable assertions

 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
> Sent: 26 March 2003 11:28
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: moreau@crf.canon.fr; Jeffrey Schlimmer; 
> roberto.chinnici@sun.com; sanjiva@us.ibm.com; www-archive@w3.org
> 
> Can the xmlspec DTD be enhanced, either experimentally or 
> locally to WSD, to include a <testable> or <assertion> element?

Yes, we can locally fudge the xmlspec.dtd ( it's heavily parameterized
).

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

We already have an xmlspec-wsdl.xsl which imports xmlspec.xsl

> 
> 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.

OK.

> 
> More below ...
> 
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:40 -0800
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> 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.

OK

> 
> > 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.

Can you please provide markup for the above assertions ;-) ;-)

> 
> > 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?

Oh yes, all assertions appear in the spec. I was just noting that some
of them are 'checked' by the schema.

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 15:25:05 UTC