Thursday's Discussion

On Thursday, we will go over the test assertions that I generated for 
SpecGL.  One of the main things I want to focus on is whether the 
conformance requirements need to be made more specific.  For some 
checkpoints I had to rely on the Discussion, Rationale or Example sections 
to get more information or to get more detail (e.g., conformance 
requirements for Chkpt 7.2 requires to distinguish normative text from 
informative content.  The discussion adds normative and informative 
examples, illustrations and use cases as well.)

There are 2 ways to proceed:

1) In the future, we could ignore these sections and just generated the 
assertions from the conformance requirements.  However,  for SpecGL, I 
don't think the test assertions would have been specific enough to generate 
tests;

2) We could clarify and expand the conformance requirements to  incorporate 
the concepts in the Discussion, Rationale and Examples section.  This would 
be my preferred choice.

If we choose 2) we need to set aside extra time for a feedback loop after 
the assertions are generated in order to rewrite the conformance requirements.

Please look over the test assertions before Thursday's call and be prepared 
to discussion ones that you feel are contentious.

Thanks.

Mark

Received on Sunday, 14 December 2003 11:52:54 UTC