Tim Churches wrote: > On teh international openhealth mailing list some months ago, there was a > discussion on this with respect open source health software and a proposed US > accreditation mechanism - see > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00656.html - if you > scroll down you'll see the entire thread of messages. > > The points I made were that: > a) accredittaion tests should be automated, not done by humans tapping a > keyboard and clicking a mouse each and every time a test needs to be repeated > (for a new version of the software etc) ; > b) there should be no monopoly on who creates the test scripts; > c) the testing authority merely verifies the correctness of the test scripts > and runs them to perform the test - or, much better, it trusts a signed > statement from accredited independent testing agencies (so that there is a > competitive market for their services and no govt-created monopoly). > > The main point is that application developers should be able to do the leg > work of creating test scripts to demonstrate compliance of their products > themselves, since this is were a lot of the costs lie. Of course, the first > step is to create a comprehensive set of test specs, and to publish these. > You've been hanging around Extreme Programmers too long, Tim. :-) It sounds fantastic to me though. How would it work in practice.
I must admit that I was thinking testing and certifying would be aimed more at the differing components such as the GUI, middleware and backend. -- Vale John Hinde (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1678928.htm)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
