The optional SQL PSM cannot be implemented in its current state.

SQL PSM Removed from specification

Most of classes and fields/attributes are not specified enough: too often, they are even not described at all. All fields deserve a clear and sensible description

Updated MANY class definitions and fields throughout the document to provide additional context and clarifying definitions. These changes effect virtually every class and page within Section 7 of the document

Section 2.2:

• 1st paragraph: "if they match" -> "if they fully match" ?

• the five first bullets should be allocated in the correct sections of the PIM

• The last bullet reads strange after the introduction: does an implementation need to implement everything or just a part? Clarify.

The bulleted items of this issue were resolved under FTF 1 as follows:
• Changed wording to “if they conform to”.
• Replaced the final bullet with a better description of the intent, resulting in the deletion of the original text and insertion of the new text.
Rewording of the last bullet was discussed and adjudicated among FTF members to improve clarity.

Please, CHECK you xml files wrt XML rules AND wrt their XSD with a tool

The XML files were updated to resolve structural issues and validated using Microsoft Visual Studio and all XML was validated against the schema with MS Visual Studio.

Page 109 - Figure 2-66 & Page 110 - Figure 2-67: poor quality of the image

The TestIF team discussed the issue of the SQL PSM extensively. The SQL PSM was not completed in either the revised submission or during FTF1. Based on a survey of participants and all known active participants with the TestIF standard it was decided to remove the SQL PSM from the current specification. There are no known implementations (complete, partial, or planned) of the TestIF SQL PSM.
See Issue 19598 which asks for the removal of the SQL PSM

Section 2.3.57 - Table 2-2: the type (composite…) is lacking

No Data Available

• the XSD should be referenced in the XML header

• A lot of XML errors: line 33, 44, 54, 241 (& -> &), 257, 282, 372, 379, 406 and 415 (< and > are not XML characters), 425 and so one

c4i/12-09-09

- a lot of XML errors: lines 48, 289, 244,345, 346, 347, 348, 98 and so one… use a tool!

c4i/12-09-11

• again, this not a valid XML file

• again add the reference to the XSD to check the validity of the XML file wrt to the chema

• again, use a tool

These issues were checked and necessary changes were resolved during this FTF Period. These file have been replaced by documents:
c4i/12-09-07 dtc/2014-08-07 dtc/2014-09-20
c4i/12-09-09 dtc/2014-08-04 dtc/2014-09-22
c4i/12-09-11 dtc/2014-08-05 dtc/2014-09-23

• the document number is wrong: it should 11-01 instead of 09-12

• Additional documents: aren't these documents machine consumable files?

• Where is the PSM for SQL file ?

The final inventory file (within this document) contains all the correct file references

c4i/12-09-06

• this file should hold only the xml and be an XML file since the text is copy/paste of the specification text

• the XSD should be referenced in the XML header

Appendix A has been changed from a document to XML file and the XSD is referenced in the header.
This file has been replaced by document: dtc/2014-09-22.

Section 2.3.56:

• is this section normative ?

• 3rd paragraph - eighth line: "attribute contains" -> "attribute definition contains"

• last paragraph: I believe that the OMG could gather all these AttributeDefinitions on its website

Page 66 - last paragraph: "it is expected that … implementations." This sentence is not clear; is it or not mandatory to follow these rules?

the extensibility needs to be introduced here

first paragraph: "Test processes for software systems" -> for C4I systems

Figure 2-3: SUT is not a TestIF wording

Figure 2-1: avoid to advertise too heavily enterprises’ work

Section 2.3.13: 1st paragraph: "an attribute column within RE/RM tool": I don't understand, please explain, what's RE/RM? what's attribute column?

Section 2.3.8: this class doesn't hold anything!? What could be the interest of such a class? Moreover, what is the point of this when there is a capability of extension in this spec?

Section 2.3.13: the class Attribute Definition does need to be Identifiable (Base Classifier = Identifiable)

Page 37 - first paragraph (a bullet): "package that Test Specific classesPackage TestIF" can’t be parsed

Section 2.3.4.1.4: The 1st paragraph speaks twice about "the" document: which document?

line "Test Model" - column "UTP Term": what does mean "See the UTP Model" ?

Section 2.3.58: is it a way to extend the standard? if yes, this is not clear in the "extending the standard" part

Page 88 - fifth line (MIME): please reference the IETF standards: RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 4288, RFC 4289 and RFC 2049

Section 2.5 - third paragraph: "In this PSM… (50)… instance": this is not clear what is mandatory. Is 50 mandatory or is it a number which is implementation-dependent ?

Section 2.4.3: say that this section is non-normative

Page 18 - First bullet: "the second failed due to a observing an incorrect value": I can't parse.

- Page 18 - Third bullet: was determined by A second …"

- Page 30 - "shows the conceptual relationship between the types " -> … among the types…

• Page 32 - Third bullet: between -> among

• Page 34 - first line: between -> among

• Page 68 - last sentence: "genrally" -> "generally"

Section 3.1:

• First line -> "No change to any OMG specifications is required"

• section 3.1.1 onwards: this is not about change of adopted OMG specification but about relationship with other standards. please move this elsewhere (cf before)

• section 3.1.6: MARTES -> MARTE

Page 93: penultimate paragraph ("The TesIFToolExtensionType exists…"): this paragraph is not clear. in which cases there are items that could not be handled with the standard attributes?

Page 85 - third paragraph: "the reqs for each of the AttributeDefinition's fields are below:…" what about the type of the Definition (i.e. the subclass of AttributeDefinition it belongs to)?

Section 2.5.2 - last paragraph thereof: I could find the file named "TesIF SAL PSM.xsl". Next, why is it a .xsl file?

Section 1.8 - last sub-bullet of the Interchange bullet: I don't understand this sentence

One file is not introduced in the text and need to be: the xml file holding the default normative attribute. For instance, in the 2.3.57.

Cause-effect model:

• please add a legend for this graphical language

• say this is not normative (as in page 16)

• state that this spec provisions or not such for the interchange of such model

please avoid to advertise too heavily enterprises’ work particularly when they are not members of the OMG

Please clearly specify that the symbols you are introducing for the example are just there for the sake of explanation and that you don't intend to standardize a graphical notation (this is not a UML profile).

Page 17 - Figure 1-1: The "requirement R1" and "Requirement R2" balloons use the notation for "expected result" while they are not expected results