wording question in CK3.6

We implemented David's suggested new ckpt 3.6 as follows:

### begin 0811 text ###
3.6 If profiles are chosen, address rules for profiles. [Priority 2]

If the specification anticipates and allows that groups may define new 
profiles in the future, provide rules for derived profiles that will enable 
the derived profiles to be well-specified. Derived profiles should be 
specified in a way that meets all the pertinent checkpoints of this 
document. Derived profiles should not clash with pre-defined profiles, if 
there are any (@@in the base specification?). Checkpoints from Guideline 9 
(extensions) can be adapted into rules for profiles. Any rules for derived 
profiles in the base specification must be testable, so that an independent 
tester can verify conformance of a derived profile to the rules.
### end ###

I think that there is a MUST requirement for satisfaction of the checkpoint 
in the first sentence and another in the last sentence.  There is a 
question about these middle two sentences, "Derived profiles should be 
specified in a way that meets all the pertinent checkpoints of this 
document. Derived profiles should not clash with pre-defined profiles, if 
there are any (@@in the base specification?)."

These sentences each look like an imposed constraint on a specification's 
"Rules for Profiles", that they should in turn place constraints on 
profiles that are valid under their rules.  I.e., here in SpecGL we are 
saying that any Rules for Profiles should require that derived profiles 
observe these two rules.  (It is messy to say, because in CK3.6 we are 
presenting "rules for rules for profiles" .)

It that is agreed, then I propose to clarify

"It is recommended that rules for derived profiles should impose at least 
these two rules on derived profiles:  derived profiles should be specified 
in a way that meets all the pertinent checkpoints of this document (QA 
Framework: Specification Guidelines); and, Derived profiles should not 
clash with pre-defined profiles, if there are any (@@in the base 
specification?)."

Okay?

-Lofton.

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 11:44:11 UTC