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