{"title":"理解的前提条件","authors":"D. Garlan","doi":"10.5555/952786.952823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We argue that advocates of a formal method have an obligation to explain the relationship between the role of proof in that method and the role of proof in others. Such comparisons are needed to (a) clarify the \"method\" behind a specific notation, (b) dispel misconceptions invited by the use of similar vocabulary with different meanings, and (c) suggest improvements to existing methods. We illustrate these points by comparing the use of preconditions in Z with that in other formal methods.","PeriodicalId":435917,"journal":{"name":"International Workshop on Software Specification and Design","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preconditions for understanding\",\"authors\":\"D. Garlan\",\"doi\":\"10.5555/952786.952823\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We argue that advocates of a formal method have an obligation to explain the relationship between the role of proof in that method and the role of proof in others. Such comparisons are needed to (a) clarify the \\\"method\\\" behind a specific notation, (b) dispel misconceptions invited by the use of similar vocabulary with different meanings, and (c) suggest improvements to existing methods. We illustrate these points by comparing the use of preconditions in Z with that in other formal methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":435917,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Workshop on Software Specification and Design\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Workshop on Software Specification and Design\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5555/952786.952823\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Workshop on Software Specification and Design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5555/952786.952823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
We argue that advocates of a formal method have an obligation to explain the relationship between the role of proof in that method and the role of proof in others. Such comparisons are needed to (a) clarify the "method" behind a specific notation, (b) dispel misconceptions invited by the use of similar vocabulary with different meanings, and (c) suggest improvements to existing methods. We illustrate these points by comparing the use of preconditions in Z with that in other formal methods.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
