jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (10/21/89)
What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? A thought prompted by wanting to ask a question about them and realizing it didn't fit into any newsgroup I could think of. I prefer the name above, despite its unfortunate ambiguity (it could also be read as specification OF computer languages, a subtopic of my intended one) but could live with comp.software-eng.formal or comp.specification. Usenet being what it is, someone's bound to suggest something much more specific before long; better we get in first with a top-level group to cover the whole shebang. This is a call for discussion only, so no email please; keep it public. Followups directed to news.groups (where this topic has to compete with an interminable thread about fish, so be voluble!). -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
ladkin@icsib (Peter Ladkin) (10/24/89)
i support jack's call for a newsgroup on specification. i don't think it's a subgroup of language interests, so i prefer the title comp.specification. peter ladkin
malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) (10/24/89)
By all means let us discuss programming methodology on the net. Do we need a new newsgroup? I hope not. I suggest either (a) using sci.logic, or (b) using comp.software-eng. My own reasons for reading them has been, at least partly, to participate in discussions about formal programming methods. The sci.logic isn't used very much right now, and could do with a wider scope. Perhaps programming methodology could contribute to the present stream there concerning Church's thesis. The comp.software-eng is used quite a lot but rarely mentions formal methods. In my opinion this is the best place to discuss programming methodology. Even there, a logically technical discussion would not be out of place. Logic and software-engineering are two sides of the same coin, anyway: didn't Dana Scott coin (sorry) the term `axiom engineering' to refer to it? Andrew Malton, Dept of Computer Science, U of Toronto.
bard@brigid.cs.cornell.edu (Bard Bloom) (10/24/89)
This sounds like a good idea. I've worked some in CCS, and I'd like to have a place where I can see if CCS concepts are relevant to other kinds of tools. Also, I do the theory of CCS, and I'd like to know something about the practice ... and the practice of specifications in general. Bard Bloom Asst. Prof. of C.S. Cornell University
infpve@utrcu1.UUCP (Peter van Eijk) (10/24/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> writes: > >What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and >requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri Being involved in LOTOS, i am much in favor of a newsgroup devoted to it. I suppose there is some cross fertilisation possible between those topics, so they might be bundled somehow. I would be in favor of a hierarchy starting at comp.lang.specification as we would be discussing topics related to the *expression* of concepts. I am involved in the distribution of LOTOS software, and from that experience i can predict that interest will come from Europe, Japan, Korea, the rest of the british commonwealth, and the US, in that order. -- Peter van Eijk University of Twente Dept Informatica / IPS P.O. Box 217; 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands +31-53-893789 mcvax!utrcu1!infpve Tune in next week and be bored again.
drabik@hslrswi.uucp (Drabik Pascal) (10/24/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: > Path: hslrswi!cernvax!mcsun!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!ncar!announce-newgroups > From: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) > Date: 20 Oct 89 17:37:47 GMT > Sender: woods@ncar.ucar.edu > Reply-To: Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> ... > > What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and > requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri > nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? ... I wander why there is not yet such a newsgroup. It is clear that there we need it. Pascal. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DRABIK Pascal Tel: +41-31-63-32-22 % You'll never % ASCOM Tech Ltd Telefax: +41-31-63-36-07 % know until % KTHD % you try... % Belpstrasse, 23 e-mail : drabik@hslrswi.uucp % ~~~~~~~~~~~~ % CH-3000 Berne 14 Switzerland % ~ ~~~~~~ ~ %
sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) (10/24/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> writes: > > >What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and >requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri >nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? >A thought prompted by wanting to ask a question about them and realizing it >didn't fit into any newsgroup I could think of. > Considering that the UK Ministry of Defence has started a program to make sure that al safety critical software is formally verified, this is an idea whose time has come. comp.lang.formal would be fine; after all if we want a newsgroup to discuss say Z then we can always form comp.lang.Z as well (though considering the amount of stuff on the Z mailing list recently this is not an immediate danger (if any of you are reading this---consider this deliberately provocative). There are several mailing lists already going about some of these, so would it not be a good idea to let them know what is suggested? Sean
mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) (10/24/89)
I have not seen enough traffic to support the creation of a group focused on comp.lang.specification. If a need is perceived for a special forum, I would suggest broadening the scope to comp.sw.formal[-methods]. This would also place the group in a more appropriate place in the hierarchy. -- /s/ George vmail: 703/883-6029 email: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org [alt: gmitchel@mitre.arpa] snail: GB Mitchell, MITRE, MS Z676, 7525 Colshire Dr, McLean, VA 22102
chambers@chest.dec.com (10/25/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes... > >What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and >requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri >nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? It will get my vote
sartin@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Rob Sartin) (10/25/89)
I'm in favor of the concept of having discussions on specification language (and other formal and informal aspects of software engineering). I think that it would be best to have them in comp.software-eng for now. I never would have thought to look in sci.logic for dicussions about this. Rob Sartin internet: sartin@hplabs.hp.com Software Technology Lab uucp : hplabs!sartin Hewlett-Packard voice : (415) 857-7592
pyoung@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (Peter Young) (10/25/89)
From article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, by jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin): > What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and > requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri > nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? > A thought prompted by wanting to ask a question about them and realizing it > didn't fit into any newsgroup I could think of. I would welcome the creation of such a group. It would be a valuable forum for those of us who are interested in the area of formal specification languages. It might also encourage a wider interest in the subject in the US. > I prefer the name above, despite its unfortunate ambiguity (it could also > be read as specification OF computer languages, a subtopic of my intended > one) but could live with comp.software-eng.formal or comp.specification. comp.theory.specification also springs to mind. I also think that if there is insufficient support for a newsgroup then a mailing list could fulfil this function, admittedly with a smaller readership. ____________________________________________________________________ Pete Young pyoung@axion.bt.co.uk British Telecom Research Labs,SSTF, Martlesham Heath IPSWICH IP5 7RE Phone +44 473 645054
slf@stl.stc.co.uk (Steve Fagg) (10/25/89)
I'm in favour of the creation of the group as described, but I'm more concerned than the original poster about the ambiguity of the name comp.lang.specification possibly implying discussion of the specification of languages (a fascinating enough topic in its own right though it be). I'd like to see it as comp.software-eng.<something> as long as the <something> was general enough to include at least all the languages mentioned in the original posting. I hope such a group will be a useful forum for discussions on the relations *between* the various languages available for specifying reqiurements and systems, ie. questions of the sort: What language is good for doing <whatever>? and How can I do <whatever> in <language>? -- Regards Steve Fagg ( slf@stl.stc.co.uk +44-279-29531 Ext 2437 ) STC Technology Ltd., London Road, Harlow, Essex, CM17 9NA Regards Steve Fagg ( slf@stl.stc.co.uk +44-279-29531 Ext 2437 )
jwo@bcrka204.bnr.ca (John O'Leary 1616199) (10/26/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> writes: >What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and >requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri >nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? What a good idea! I would like to see such a newsgroup on the net. John O'Leary, VHDL Group Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa JWO@BNR.CA
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (10/27/89)
"Steve Fagg" <slf@stl.stc.co.uk> wrote: > I'm in favour of the creation of the group as described, but I'm more > concerned than the original poster about the ambiguity of the name > comp.lang.specification possibly implying discussion of the specification > of languages (a fascinating enough topic in its own right though it be). I concede on this one. I can think of something else wrong with it - these systems are more than just languages: Z, for example, incorporates a weak set theory, CCS a temporal logic, and OBJ a computational model that is halfway to being implemented in hardware. I suspect Peter Ladkin may have had something like that in mind. > I'd like to see it as comp.software-eng.<something> as long as the > <something> was general enough to include at least all the languages > mentioned in the original posting. I now incline towards "comp.specification", as being neutral on the issue of whether this stuff is mathematics or software engineering. I would hope to get people from both extremes participating - the theoreticians are hiding in clandestine mailing lists at the moment; they don't think of themselves as software engineers and aren't interested in filtering out the discussions that go on there about software metrics and management issues. And we've already heard from a software engineer who said he wouldn't ever have thought of using sci.logic for this. Think of this group as something like the table they put across the border fence in Korea when diplomats from North and South need to talk :-). > I hope such a group will be a useful forum for discussions on the relations > *between* the various languages available for specifying requirements and > systems, ie. questions of the sort: What language is good for doing > <whatever>? and How can I do <whatever> in <language>? This was exactly the sort of question that prompted me to suggest this - for the life of me I couldn't think of an appropriate place to put it. -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
keck@shiva.trl.oz (Brian Keck) (10/27/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> writes: > > >What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and >requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri >nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? > There would be a lot of interest down here >I prefer the name above, despite its unfortunate ambiguity (it could also >be read as specification OF computer languages, a subtopic of my intended >one) but could live with comp.software-eng.formal or comp.specification. > comp.lang.specification is OK Brian Keck ACSnet[Internet]:b.keck@.trl.oz[.au] Telecom Australia Research Phone: +1 61 3 541 6407 P.O. Box 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
mph@inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison) (10/27/89)
In article <2356@stl.stc.co.uk> "Steve Fagg" <slf@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >I'm in favour of the creation of the group as described, but I'm more >concerned than the original poster about the ambiguity of the name >comp.lang.specification possibly implying discussion of the specification of >languages (a fascinating enough topic in its own right though it be). Its actually more complicated than this - I used Z (and subsequently me-too) to describe the relations of program units in (and subsequently simulate the behaviour of) an Ada Program Library, which is using a specification language to capture (part of) the specifications of a language ! :-). Seriously, I support the creation of such a group, which I believe to be allied to (but distinct from) formal methods. I really don't care much about the name. "That which we call a rose ..." :-) Mike Harrison. -- Michael P. Harrison - Software Group - Inmos Ltd. UK. ----------------------------------------------------------- UK : mph@inmos.co.uk with STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS; US : mph@inmos.com use STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;
johnz@basser.oz (John Zic) (10/31/89)
I vote "yes" to setting up a newsgroup for the discussion of specification "languages". May I also suggest that a mailing list be established if there are insufficent numbers of people interested in the topic? Regards John Zic johnz@jandj.oz.au || johnz@cs.su.oz.au Correctness proofs are hard. Reality proofs are harder. -- John Zic | Correctness proofs are hard. ACSnet: johnz@cs.su.oz.au | Reality proofs are harder.
rs@mrcu (Bob Smith) (11/10/89)
In article <3614@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> writes: > > >What do people think of having a newsgroup to discuss specification and >requirements languages - Z, Larch, OBJ, Lotos, VDM, metoo, CSP, CCS, Petri >nets, RML, Forest, hardware description languages,... and related issues? There are several people who would be in favour of a formal specifications group at Marconi Research Centre. (We are especially interested in Z and Object-oriented Z). -- Robert Smith | Tel: +44 245 73331 x.3215 GEC-Marconi Research Centre | Fax: +44 245 75244 Great Baddow, Chelmsford, | Uucp: ...!mcvax!ukc!mrcu!yd25 Essex, UK CM2 8HN | Other: yd25@uk.co.gec-mrc