RE: Proposed change to 1636.1 test results XML schema

Thank you for the concise and cogent summary of the discussion. I think you captured the issues very well. That said, I suspect we may need to defer this specific issue until the meeting at AUTOTESTCON where we will be able to address the issue in an online, face-to-face setting. My experience is that, when faced with difficult issues such as this, these face-to-face meetings are invaluable.

Also, I would like to point out that some additional information was requested but never provided. Perhaps the most important additional information was better explanation of the underlying use case. Since I was not part of the original discussion, I did not have the benefit of seeing this use case. Therefore, while I tend to agree with Brit, I do not feel I am able to argue the case adequately without understanding that use case.

The second bit of information that was requested (by me) was some kind of "pictorial" representation of the schema with and without the added information. My preference is an EXPRESS model, but I am willing to entertain other representations. Note that I find the XML Spy representation to be very difficult to follow since it does not provide a "bird's-eye) view of the schema (especially since I do not have XML Spy to browse the schema and have to rely on exported documentation).

Bottom line: While I appreciate and agree with the desire to "git 'r dun," I don't think we have the necessary information to make the required decision in the coming week. Therefore, if we absolutely have to make a decision this week, I have to go with direction in which I am leaning and oppose to the addition.

John

-----
Dr. John W. Sheppard
-- Fellow and Assistant Research Professor
-- ARINC and Johns Hopkins University
-- jsheppar@arinc.com and jsheppa2@jhu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-ai-estate@ieee.org [mailto:stds-ai-estate@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ralph, John (Mission Systems)
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:25 AM
To: stds-ai-estate@IEEE.ORG
Subject: Proposed change to 1636.1 test results XML schema

There was a good bit of discussion and a variety of opinions expressed regarding the proposal to add a "non-test action" element to the 1636.1 Test Results schema. Some of the discussion revolved around the definition of terms. While I agree that we should be clear on what we mean when we use certain words, I don't believe we have the luxury of debating definitions for the next 12 months; we need to take our "best shot" and move forward so that Draft 2 may be submitted.

It was suggested by Brit Frank that Test Results is not the proper place to capture non-result events or actions that occur during the course of a test. Rather, he suggested that Test Description might be a better home for this information. A clarification on the purpose of Test Description has shown that this won't work.

Another suggestion was the creation of a new schema for the specific purpose of recording such non-result information. The down-side of this approach is that it fragments the serial flow of data by requiring references to and linking in external files when it becomes necessary to reconstruct the entire sequence of events that occured during the course of a test.

I believe we have two options regarding the suggested modifications to Test Results:
1. Accept the proposed change, and modify the schema/documentation accordingly, or
2. Reject the proposal and require users with a desire/need to capture such information to institute their own use-case specific extension to the Test Results schema.

Obviously this can't be a unilateral decision, but a decision must be made soon - preferrably within the next week.

I solicit your feedback, and specifically request that potential users of the schema weigh in with their preference.

John Ralph