- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:45:07 +0200
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
* Alex Rousskov wrote: >IIRC, there was a long thread on this mailing list discussing this >very issue. There were at least two points of view: > > 1) It is impossible to define "testable" precisely. > Statement X is "testable" when there exists > a finite algorithm/procedure that correctly, > with sufficient probability, assesses > the truthfulness of X. What is sufficient > or even finite is impossible to define precisely. > > 2) It is possible to define what "testable" means. > No workable definition was provided though. If the QA WG does not attempt to define "testable", this should be made explicit in the document, e.g., "This specification does not define what it consideres testable". The definition does not have to be precise, it could also be defined in broad terms, you could for example say that something is testable if one could reasonably expect conformance testing software to proof it. This would of course limit the scope of "testable" to software which is not necessarily intended by the Specification Guidelines (in which case I would suggest to choose a better term as "tests" are commonly perceived as involving automated process; if specification A requires specification B to make a statement C the requirement could be considered "testable" by reading specification B, but I would not refer to this "test" by "I have tested B for C").
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 19:45:28 UTC