- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:58:28 -0400
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa@w3.org
> > >You cannot programmatically verify that are getting people's >attention. You're missing the point. We don't need to verify this. It's called empirical evidence. We've already seen it with our own eyes. > > There is now a conditioned reflex on the part of the reader to stop > > every time he or she sees a MUST and say "that's a requirement". > >You cannot programmatically verify that a reader has a conditioned >reflex. Again, we have years of experience with the RFC. What you and Lofton are suggesting is a hypothetical premise that one can produce clear requirements. This is subjective and unverifiable. My example is not hypothetical. It's real and it's been demonstrated. If one uses the same convention over and over, it becomes ingrained into the memory. >Again and again, you do not apply your logic to your own comments. >IMO, your logic is too rigid and leads to a "we cannot do anything" >dead-end. The above statements is a good illustration. I think the logic you're referring to is Alex-logic. I like to use real logic. > > What "heavy-handed" approach? We have requirements all through > > SpecGL, OpsGL and TestGL. Why is this one heavy-handed and not the > > others? IMHO, this one is much more important than many of the > > others. > >Other requirements [should] talk about good spec qualities. This >requirement talks about a tool to achieve good spec qualities. There >is a big difference (as big as the difference between MUST and >SHOULD). What we're actually doing is invoking syntax along with semantics. Standards can actually do that . . . **************************************************************** 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 Thursday, 26 June 2003 13:59:09 UTC