Index Up Site Map Latest News Working Practices Discussion & Review Glossary Module Testing Non-Func. Testing Domains-Techniques Links Test Papers Feedback Administration



HELD ON  8th APRIL 2003



1. Attendance.


Becky Smith, Isabel Evans, Laurel Saunders, Margaret Edney, Richard Neeve, Stuart Reid


Graham Thomas, Julian Harty, Marco Giromini, Lloyd Roden, Lawrance Titterton, Peter Morgan, Steve Allott.



2. Agree Agenda

03/4.1                      The agenda was amended to review the Integration, Interoperability and Compatibility discussion document before the Database/Compatibility example.


3. Technique reviews

                                The following administrative actions were recorded during the domain technique review section of the meeting:


03/4.2                      SWP Administrative Actions

- Isabel agreed to produce a 2 sentence question for discussion of where backwards and forwards compatibility fit.  Stuart will post to the website.


- Graham to send Stuart any material for posting for review.


New Action.




3.1. Compatibility - Database technique example review


The attendees did not know who was the author of the example.

The example did not fit the agreed definition of Compatibility but does not swap to another heading.  Stuart questioned if this example was actually Interoperability.

The meeting wanted to keep the example as it was clearly from a real project. There was a suggestion that it should be made a Case Study. This would open a new section. If the author is willing to adapt the example as a Case Study, all information should be kept. It was felt the example covered many different techniques.

Richard raised the issue of where backwards and forwards compatibility fit into the matrix. The question will be raised for discussion on the website.


                                The following actions were agreed:


03/4.3                      Compatibility/Database


- Graham to pass the meeting’s comments to the author


- Reword to fit to template. Include rational as to why different types of testing technique were required. Include test cases and conclusion.


- Convert into Case Study


- Information on Oracle versions to be kept, so long as we have permission to use the example.


New Action.




3.2          Definition of Procedure Testing

Nobody at the meeting knew who the author was. 

Various comments suggested the proposed definition did not match previous definitions. Dictionary definition of Procedure – a way of acting or progressing in a course of action. This didn’t answer the question about the correct definition.

The meeting felt that procedure testing is testing the procedure, rather than the documentation of the procedure.

The example given could be worked into the guidelines e.g. a list of documents and analysis and a list of information. The definition should describe what goes on.

Each test case should specify:

1.        Set-up of the test environment

2.        The part of the procedure being exercised.

3.        The input triggering the event in the procedure.

4.        The expected outcome of the procedure.

It was agreed that Figure 1 was not correct.


03/4.4                      Procedure Testing Definition


- Graham to pass the meeting’s comments to the author


- Author to review comments from the website and action as necessary.


- Author to review comments from the meeting and action as necessary.


New Action.




3.3          Definition for Sign-off – Conversion – MIS and Conversion – Database


The author, Isabel Evans, walked the meeting through the example and comments. There were some typing errors that needed correcting. Invalid output partitions should be justified. There was a question whether this was an MIS conversion example or just a database example. Isabel agreed that the example really only covered database conversion. Another example will be required for MIS conversion.


03/4.5                      Conversion-Database


- Isabel to incorporate changes into the document and send to Stuart for inclusion on the web site


New Action.



4. Extended Definitions of Interoperability, Integration and Compatibility


Stuart, as the author, led the meeting through the example, giving regard to the comments received through the website.


4.1.    Interoperability


Isabel suggested a Venn Diagram. Stuart will incorporate one.

A table, possibly in the Guidelines section, should show what phase of testing these apply to. These are part of integration testing in the large.

4.2.    Integration


4.3.    Compatibility

There was a discussion on whether Compatibility testing is part of Integration testing. The meeting decided it was not. Questions were also raised on Portability vs. Compatibility.

Isabel suggested incorporating the comments into the Guidelines as they indicated questions people would have when using the definitions.

Comments will be incorporated as appropriate.


03/ 4.6 Actions from Definition Discussion

- Stuart to incorporate Venn diagram into Interoperability definition.


- Stuart to incorporate comments as appropriate


- Stuart to add a definition for Portability


- Document will be posted for discussion before the next meeting and sign off at the next meeting (21/05/03)


New Action.




5. Living Glossary – Terms for Review

                                The following terms were put forward for discussion. Comments had been received.

·         Fit for Purpose Testing

Isabel had proposed a different definition. This will be posted for discussion. We need a term to describe the type of testing Lawrance had defined, possibly “Specification Testing”- Testing confined to demonstrating that the system meets the specification. Stuart has a definition and will post to the web site.

·         Rigorous Testing

This definition was rejected.

·         Requirement

Definition to be amended to cover functional and non-functional requirements.

·         Specification

Use the short definition as given. The old definition will be used to cover component specification.

·         Reliability

Comments had been received from Neil Hudson:

2.2 will be incorporated

2.1 and 2.3 were rejected

Comments had been received from Marco Giromini. It was felt his definition was too performance based.

·         Reliability Requirements - Accepted

·         Reliability Testing - Accepted

·         Usability

Stuart to update with definition from ISO 9126-1, 2001

·         Usability Requirements - Accepted

·         Usability Testing - Accepted

·         Maintainability

Stuart to update as appropriate.

·         Maintainability Requirements - Accepted

·         Maintainability Testing - Accepted

·         Portability

Stuart to update as appropriate.

·         Portability Requirements - Accepted

·         Portability Testing - Accepted

·         Availability, Integrity, Confidentiality

These will be included as sub items within the Security definition as they are specifically related to security testing.

·         Security

Stuart to update to include availability, integrity and confidentiality

·         Security Requirements - Accepted

·         Security Testing - Accepted


The following items will be carried over to the next meeting:

·         Performance

·         Performance Requirements

·         Performance Testing

·         Storage

·         Storage Requirements

·         Storage Testing



03/4.7                      Living Glossary

-  Stuart to post Isabel’s definition for “Fit for Purpose” testing on the website for review


- Stuart to post request for short definitions for verification and validation.


- Stuart to update definitions to incorporate the accepted comments.


New Action.




6. Minutes from the Previous Meeting


03/4.8                      The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed but all action items were carried over to the meeting on 21st May.



7. Actions from the Previous Meetings

All actions outstanding from the previous meetings will be carried forward to the next meeting.


02/2.7                      New Joiners Guide

- Isabel Evans suggested the production of a guide for new joiners which could be posted on the Web Site. As Secretary Graham has direct contact with all new members so will look at this.
[30/07/02] The new joiners guide will be modified to fit in with the new approach.


Carried Forward.



03/2.2                      Interoperability/e-business

- Stuart agreed to propose a definition for Interoperability.


- Stuart agreed to propose a definition for Systems Integration Testing.


New Action.



03/2.3                      Conversion/DB&MIS

- Isabel agreed to update the example in line with the comments received.


- Isabel offered to reformat the example in line with the proposed template (above).





03/3.2                      SWP Administrative Actions

- Graham to e-mail the definition of Procedure Testing to Stuart Reid so that it can be posted on the website. - Completed


- Stuart to Insert a link in the website glossary to terms defined in the non-functional definitions section.


- Graham agreed to write a general note to all domain/technique authors requesting 1. That they re-format their examples to use the new template as defined in the minutes of the 12/02/03 meeting.

2. If inserting diagrams in their examples can they please use the drawing tools available in the word processing package being used, then the diagram will be automatically converted when posted to the website.


- Angela Edwards agreed to produce a proposal for how we expect people to use the web-based domain technique examples by 28/03/03


- Graham to include an agenda item for two meetings time (21/05/03) to discuss the proposal from Angela about how people will actually use the web-based domain/technique examples.


- Graham agreed to e-mail the working party to notify them when the minutes of the last meeting are posted to the website.


Carried Forward



03/2.4                      Marketing

- Graham agreed to contact the working party and ask for volunteers to write articles publicising the work of the group.


- Request Steve Allott to put together a timetable for generating and publishing articles in the following publications:

                The Tester
                Professional Tester
                Computing/Computer Weekly


- Consider a proposal for a Testing Standards Workshop at Eurostar03


- Add a promotional presentation to the website.


- Forward existing group presentations to Stuart to be loaded on the website.


- Request a speaking slot at a future BCS SIGiST event.


- Expand the website to include other material i.e. IEEE 610 and IEEE 829, relevant papers and articles etc.


- Request Julian Harty to work out what copyright the group should apply to the material on the website.


- Margaret agreed to search the web for other standards material and testing sites that we could consider linking to.


- Richard Neeve volunteered to chase up potential sites that we could link to from the website, as long as they would post a reciprocal link back to our website.
[NB. This action was omitted from the minutes when first published in March]


New Action.




8. Any other business




9. Date of Next Meeting

                                The dates for future SWP meetings are listed below. In the absence of Graham, the group did not know what had been received for review over the next month.






1:00pm – 4:00pm

Domain/Technique example reviews (TBD)


1:00pm – 4:00pm

Domain/Technique example reviews (TBD)


                                The above meetings will take place at PA (Consulting), 4th Floor, 123 Buckingham Palace Road, London.


                                NB. All are welcome to attend, but please confirm attendance in advance with the secretary so that security passes can be arranged.


Margaret Edney



Attendees, Apologies, WP List, SIGIST Committee, By Request


4           Domain/Technique Matrix (16/02/03)