🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.121850.26706@hubcap.clemson.edu> lagemaat@cs.utwente.nl  
(Jeroen van de Lagemaat) writes:
> In article <tencate.713092810@galaxy>, tencate@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Eric ten  
Cate) writes:
> LOTOS was developed within ISO as part of the work of JTC1 (TC97 in the past)
> in SC21 (Information Processing Systems), the group responsible for OSI.
> LOTOS was applied there mainly to communication protocols, e.g. Transport
> Protocol and Service of OSI are described in LOTOS and published as Technical
> Reports TR 10023 and 10024 last month.
> Also, most of the work done in the area of Conformance Testing in ISO is now  
based on LOTOS.

"ISO and conformance testing" rings the bell. I cannot say much about Lotos,  
since I haven't used it. However, from my industrial experience with "ISO and  
conformance testing", e.g. an ill-designed ISO test specification language, I  
can only warn you:

Be suspicious of any (ISO, or other "official") standard in computing that has  
been developed by committee. Before adopting its use, unless you absolutely  
have to, check carefully by applying common sense and independent judgement.  
Don't forget: We just got rid of a whole political empire where everything was  
to work according to "equal standards" and did not, so don't let the "ISO"  
stamp impress you! Most good standards are approved de-facto standards that  
were already there.

Development by standardization committee often means the least common  
denominator with regard to quality and clarity of the object under development,  
not to speak about intentional bugs and fuzziness introduced into standards by  
participating companies for the sake of their business advantage. 

Besides, the crucial thing about Formal Methods is "What tool support is  
available" - and be suspicious of "tools" as well!! There are few real good  
ones.

-- 
Martin Weigele, Kapellenweg 32, D-W-5300 Bonn 2
phone +49 228 333252 home, +49 228 9866385 office
email: martin@weigele.de