Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!shebs
From: shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Specification and the Synthesis of Logic Programs
Message-ID: <225@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 11:35:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.225
Posted: Wed Aug 21 11:35:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 03:55:15 EDT
References: <663@gitpyr.UUCP>
Reply-To: shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 19
Keywords: specification, synthesis, logic
Xref: watmath net.ai:2961 net.lang.prolog:572
Summary: 

In article <663@gitpyr.UUCP> allen@gitpyr.UUCP (P. Allen Jensen) writes:

>I understand how a specification can be used to verify a program.  This
>assumes, however, that the specification is correct and self-consistent.
>It would seem that this is just as difficult as writing a correct
>program !  How does one verify a specification ?

Difficulty of specification depends on what you want to specify.
Out in the real world, a specification might read something like
"this program will cause the cruise missile to reach its target
and kill millions of Russian babies", and of course verification
is preferable to validation :-)  Most specification end up being
a little more detailed, however.  Expert systems (and *some* logic
programs) are in the position of having a specification as long
as or longer than the program, so it's preferable to make the
specification *be* the program...

							stan shebs
							bcsaic!shebs