- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:13:37 -0400
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 10:33 AM 9/9/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: > > > I think the definition is fine as it is - after removing > > "cost-effective". > >What is your definition/interpretation of "to check that requirement >has been met"? > > > We may want to add, A testable specification uses concrete terms and > > measurable quantities, and avoid words such as "works well", "looks > > good" or "shall usually happen". > >This is not related to the core discussion but please note that >"concrete" itself need to be defined for such an addition to have any >value. Also, "works well" and "looks good" is perfectly fine as long >as "well" and "good" are defined by the spec. > > > Additionally any ambiguous requirement is not testable. > >Again, "ambiguity" needs to be defined. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is . . . In all seriousness, we must rely on the intelligence of our readers. These words all in the Dictionary. If we don't want the spec to read as a novel (Alex, your words - and I agree) we can't go around defining perfectly clear "unambiguous" words. Mark **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 14:07:15 UTC