a series of questions, problems, or practical tasks to gauge somebody’s knowledge, ability, or experience
Basis for evaluation
a basis for evaluating or judging something or somebody
Trial run-through a process
a trial run-through of a process or on equipment to find out if it works
Procedure to detect presence of something
a procedure to ascertain the presence of or the properties of a substance
the art and science of designing and constructing buildings
a style or fashion of building, especially one that is typical of a period of history or of a particular place
Structure of computer system
the design, structure, and behavior of a computer system, microprocessor, or system program, including the characteristics of individual components and how they interact
Examination of basic concepts
the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
School of thought
a particular system of thought or doctrine
Guiding or underlying principles
a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
Set of beliefs or aims
a precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody’s practice or conduct
The use of natural language to convey thoughts is fraught with semantic risk. Natural language is essential for humans, yet to mitigate the semantic risk a rigorous grammar is required within a community of interest. Considerable research exists to document the monumental undertaking it is to instantiate a universal lexicon, however there is strong evidence that a rigorous lexicon within a community is possible and of significant value. Towards this end I hope to convey a distillation of my research over the last few years.
“The Four Horsemen”
Boundaries are explicit
Services are Autonomous
Services share Schema and Contract, not Class
Compatibility is based upon Policy
Any entity, without regard to its affiliation, has inherently greater value if it is employable in many places in many different ways. To realize this objective an entity needs to posses the attributes embodied in “The Four Horsemen.” The entity is whole and self-contained, yet it is allowed to interact with other entities via its interfaces. The interface has a rigorous specification on how it interacts with other interfaces. The entity exists within a community where all entities observe the same principles of realization. An entity possessing these attributes is inherently more flexible when choreographing or orchestrating with other entities to realize a more complex entity. We could assemble a complex entity from purpose specific component entities into a monolithic structure. It might be a thing of great beauty, but it is purpose built and its maintenance and flexibility in the face of change will come at great cost.
For this reason I propose a Test Architecture philosophy that embraces these tenets. It requires strict adherence to a framework. Entities have explicit boundaries and they are autonomous. Interfaces adhere to strict standards. Policy governance insures that entities are interoperable and re-usable.
This is not a trivial task. It requires considerable architectural design effort in the framework, but the reward is downstream cost reduction.
Policy One – Define your problem then look for a solution in the Standards space. Start with the standards closest to the problem space of the stakeholders. Next employ standards with wide adoption in the problem space.
Employing standards from which we extract patterns to solve our problem and convey our solution increases the probability that our solution is interoperable with products employing the same patterns. Standards evoke patterns. Using patterns in the solution space fosters the emergence of intuitive cognitive recognition of the solution. The brain of the human animal thrives on recognizing patterns; it is superlative in that regard.
Policy Two – Define a lexicon. The lexicon is policy. Embrace the lexicon. Amend the lexicon as the world changes as new realities and understandings emerge. DoDAF is evolving because a broad range of stakeholders realized early that the original specification had serious shortcomings and limitations. It underwent a rapid transition to version 1.5 and then 2. Version 2 has had to overcome significant obstacles created by the entities involved in the evolution. A lack of inclusive collaboration and compromise is likely to blame. There appears as well to have been some practice of dogma by some entities, they no longer participate in the evolution of the standard. The stakeholders of the UPDM (UML Profile for DoDAF and MODAF) appear to be likely to adopt the new proposed standard. We might be wise to draw our lexicon from the UML, tailored to the DoDAF influence.
Policy Three – Define a framework for the Test Architecture. Enforce Policy One and Two on the framework.