RE: testability definition

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 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

Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 14:07:15 UTC