Minds and Machines 5 (2):243-255 (1995)
|Abstract||The notion of specification plays a key role in the developing science of computing. It is typically considered to be the keystone in the software development process. However, there is no single, generally agreed meaning of specification that bears close scrutiny. Instead there is a variety of different, although partially interlocking and overlapping interpretations of the term.We catalogue this varietal profusion and attempt to lay bare both the sources and consequences of each major alternative. We attempt to present the full range of possibilities, and the biases inherent in each style of interpretation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ronald L. Chrisley (1994). Taking Embodiment Seriously: Nonconceptual Content and Robotics. In Kenneth M. Ford, C. Glymour & Patrick Hayes (eds.), Android Epistemology. MIT Press.
Kuipers, Theo A. F. & Wisniewski, Andrzej (1994). An Erotetic Approach to Explanation by Specification. Erkenntnis 40 (3):377-402.
Stan J. Surma (2007). A Galois Connection. Logica Universalis 1 (1).
Marcus Agnafors (2011). A Critical Comment on Collste. Public Health Ethics 4 (2):203-205.
Michael Grüninger & Christopher Menzel (2003). The Process Specification Language: Theory and Applications. AI Magazine 24 (3):63-74.
Raymond Turner (2011). Specification. Minds and Machines 21 (2):135-152.
Orna Kupferman & Moshe Y. Vardi (1999). Church's Problem Revisited. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):245-263.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #232,501 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?