W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > July 2004

Re: [SpecGL Draft] E. Good Practice: Use formal language

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:43:04 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

That was my feeling about this as well.  If the WG thinks this is a good 
thing to include and we can't write it - then if someone knows of someone 
else (in W3C or elsewhere) that could write this - this may be something we 
'contract' out and request help.  Perhaps via the IG list.  But, before we 
do that, we should decide if it should be in or considered an advanced topic.


At 02:37 PM 7/15/2004 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>This one I'm not sure that it should be included in SpecGL Lite and I need 
>more input from the QA WG participants. If you think you can develop more 
>ideas and specifically techniques and examples, it means it's useful, if 
>not, we will drop it.
>Good Practice:
>         Use formal language
>What does that mean?
>         It is possible using formal languages (e.g., XML Schema, UML) to 
> check for correctness of the specification and that requirements are 
> specified clearly and unambigiously. The checking can be done via 
> automated tools.
>Why should I care?
>         Using a formal language to define a technology means that there 
> is an abstract model of your technology and therefore it will be easier 
> to develop and write the feature in a consistent manner.
>         If the abstract model of the technology doesn't exist, using a 
> formal language will help to define it.
>         @@References about UML to define technical specifications@@ ?
>         1. Define an abstract model of your technology with a formal language
>         2. Use automatic tools to check the consistency of your technology
>         Examples? For formal language specifications - test the formal 
> language. (wiki FormalLanguageVsProse)
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 18:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:36 UTC