HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: entropy@panix.com (Daniel Gross)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: scc-1 question
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:51:18 GMT
Organization: FLOW Research, Inc.

In <b811pnp@rpi.edu> battlec@cs.rpi.edu (Clark Battle) writes:

>If the sound canvas is not expandable with new waveforms how abou the scc-1?
>Do vendors sell software waveforms for it or is it a closed system as well?

None of the Roland SoundCanvas series (including the SCC-1) support user-
defined sound samples. What you get for your money is 6 MEG of ROM with
300 professionally-sampled sounds. Since I paid < $250 for my SCC-1, I'm
not complaining. You want wavetables & samples, get a Gravis. You're going
to have wavetable editors -- commercial, PD and Shareware -- comin' out
of the woodwork over the next year.

Daniel

-- 
  Daniel Gross              \  My opinions ALWAYS
  FLOW Research, Inc.       |  reflect those of my company.
  entropy@panix.com         |  If yours don't, consider quitting.
From: simonofb@wmavm7.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 11:03:47 EST
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Demos and sound files
Reply-To: simonofb@wmavm7.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

Does anyone know FTP sites for music files (MIDI, WAV, etc.)?
What about music editors?
What about CakeWalk (whatever that is)?

Basically, I now have FTP access and want to get plugged in.

Thanks
Robert Simonoff
simonofb@wmavm7.vnet.ibm.com
Xref: sparky comp.music:5310 rec.music.synth:18750
From: work@forum.sublink.org (Andrea Gozzi @ Forum)
Newsgroups: comp.music,rec.music.synth
Subject: K2000 OS1.3 Vs OS1.0
Summary: Diferences between os1.3 and 1.0
Keywords: K2000 OS 1.3 1.0
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:30:35 GMT
Organization: Forum Graphics Exchange in Correggio (RE) ITALY

I own a K2000 with OS 1.0. What's the difference with the new
OS 1.3 which is standard on the new keyboards?
BTW, is there a K2000 mailing list?

Andrea
-- 
   ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   /  Andrea Gozzi - Via Campagnola 21/A - 42015 Correggio (RE) ITALY    / 
   /  INTERNET: work@forum.sublink.org UUCP: ..rutgers!sublink!forum     /
   /  Fax ++39522692916 Ints:RayTracing-Electronic Music-Ensoniq addicted/
   ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: comp.specification
From: krone-j@news.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joan Krone)
Subject: semantics
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:24:28 GMT

	I would like to see the ongoing discussion about semantics
remain on the comp.specification news board, rather than at the
email level.  I find the comments interesting and appropriate for
this news group as a whole.
		Joan
Newsgroups: comp.specification
From: tom@piassun1.joanneum.ac.at (Tom Leitner)
Subject: Are the POSIX specs. available via anon. FTP ?
Originator: tom@piassun1
Organization: Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 06:38:39 GMT

Hi,

The subject pretty much says it all: I need to have the POSIX specs. and
already ordered a book. But I'd need them *NOW* and can't afford to wait
until the book arrives. Are the POSIX specs. available in a text file
on some anon. FTP server.

I'd appreciate any hints.

Thanks and regards from Austria -- Tom Leitner, Joanneum Research
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: Re: Semantic definition style
Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu> ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden) writes:
>Indeed. You don't get very far into object based programming before
>you notice that functions just don't provide an adequate base for
>the semantics of even sequential programming with objects. The
>abstraction process that permits alternative realizations of operations
>as well as information hiding inherently leads to what appears at the
>abstract object level to be nondeterminism. The obvious denotational
>semantics to cover this are relational and not functional.

Alternatively, one can consider specifications to identify classes of
similar functions. For example, Stack(f,l) might define a class of stack
implementations, parameterized by length 'l'. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: comp.specification,comp.specification.z
From: gda@sei.cmu.edu (Gregory Abowd)
Subject: Formal specification of matrix operations and robotics applications
Keywords: Matrix algebra, robotics, formal specification
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:45:00 GMT


I am currently working with a student who is trying to use a formal
specification language (Z, for the moment) to describe positioning
algorithms for a robot arm.  I took a quick look through the Z
bibliographies for references to previous work using formal spec
languages for robotics applications, but found little of interest.
Does anyone know of some references to work in this area?  If so,
I would appreciate the information.  The student's work involves a lot of
matrix algebra, so I would also be interested in any references to formal
specification and matrix computations.

Thanks in advance,
Gregory


Gregory D. Abowd				
School of Computer Science and Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Gregory.Abowd@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.specification
From: piotr@cs.UAlberta.CA (Piotr Rudnicki)
Subject: Re: Semantic definition style
Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics, nondeterminism
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:22:35 GMT

pdm@daimi.aau.dk (Peter D. Mosses) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu>, ogden@seal (William F Ogden) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.084826.26088@daimi.aau.dk> pdm@daimi.aau.dk (Peter D. Mosses) writes:
>>   ...

>[Perhaps we should continue this by e-mail, as it probably doesn't
>have sufficient general interest for comp.specification.]

Continue here please.

I am sure there are many people who want to see such discussions.
I am one of them.

PR
--
Piotr (Peter) Rudnicki
From: cliff@cs.man.ac.uk (Cliff B Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.specification.z
Subject: Re: Formal Methods Newsgroups? VDM Newsgroups?
Keywords: VDM
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:46:52 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Nov18.124510.9321@uk03.bull.co.uk> bbirch@hemel.bull.co.uk (Bill Birch) writes:
>Are there newsgroups for formal methods in general, and VDM in particular?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Bill
The general news froup is
	comp.specification

I have never wanted to have a searate group for VDM (and voted agaist
establishing one for Z). Having said that, the Z people in general
(Bowen in particular) clearly provide a valuable service in
comp.specification.z.

I try to answer VDM questions which do come up but am often a long way
behind.

cliff jones
From: JBWORDS@WINVMJ.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: comp.specification.z
Subject: Z animation in Prolog
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:55:35 GMT
X-Mailer: mail-news 2.0.3

I should be glad to have information (e.g. references to papers or products)
about animation of Z specifications using Prolog.  Please reply direct to
jbwords@winvmj.vnet.ibm.com.
Many thanks, John Wordsworth.
Newsgroups: comp.specification.z
From: bbirch@hemel.bull.co.uk (Bill Birch)
Subject: Formal Methods Newsgroups? VDM Newsgroups?
Summary: Are there newsgroups for formal methods in general, and VDM in particular?
Keywords: VDM
Organization: Bull HN UK
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:45:10 GMT

Are there newsgroups for formal methods in general, and VDM in particular?

Thanks in advance,

Bill


 Bill Birch             	|	B.Birch@uk03.bull.co.uk
 Bull Info. Sys. Ltd.   	|       Bull Tel: 773 4770
 Maxted Road,         		|	Bull Mail: HM14 UK03 
 Hemel Hempstead,        	|	Tel: +44 442 884770
 HERTS, HP2 7DZ, U.K.         	|	Fax: +44 442 884570
                Aviate, Navigate, Communicate...
--
 Bill Birch             	|	B.Birch@uk03.bull.co.uk
 Bull Info. Sys. Ltd.   	|       Bull Tel: 773 4367
 Maxted Road,         		|	Bull Mail: HM14 UK03 
 Hemel Hempstead,        	|	Tel: +44 442 884367
 HERTS, HP2 7DZ, U.K.         	|	Fax: +44 442 884570
                Aviate, Navigate, Communicate...
From: cliff@cs.man.ac.uk (Cliff B Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: Semantic definition style
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:52:08 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

I should like to add a thought in reply to:

>From song@minster.york.ac.uk Sun Nov 15 14:29:07 1992
>Article: 986 of comp.specification
>I am aware that there are four different styles to define semantics.
>	operational
>	denotational
>	algebraic 
>...

I have written (in various texts on VDM (as applied to language
semantics)) about the conventional use of these terms but I have
recently come to doubt the divisions.

What has caused this rethink is that I have been working on an
object-based design language whose semantics I am giving by a mapping
into Milner's \pi calculus. What sort of semantics does that make it?

I choose \pi calculus because its algebra enables me to prove theorems
(relatively) easily. Really I am just mapping a language whose
semantics needs giving into one which is "understood" because I like
the algebraic laws of the latter. Where does this leave so-called
denotational semantics? Were we not just mapping (in the style of
Landin's original paper) into Lambda calculus because we could
manipulate it? 

I think Peter Mosses' work is an attempt to do this better.

cliff jones
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: "Algebra": and Re: Semantic definition style
Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:08:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.56242
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov13.084826.26088@daimi.aau.dk> pdm@daimi.aau.dk (Peter D. Mosses) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.195443.23006@cis.ohio-state.edu>, ogden@seal (William F Ogden) writes:
>>Now algebraic semantics would seem to be predicated on the dubious
>>proposition that computation is entirely describable within a limited
>>first-order subarea of mathematics -- namely algebra.

I assume you mean "univeral algebra", and not "algebra" as mathematicians
generally use the word. 

>- which can specify Turing machine computations, and hence is
>universal.  In any case, there are `first-order' models for domains,
>e.g., Scott's P-omega model, where continuous functions are
>represented by their approximation graphs.

In any event, I've never been able to understand the virtue of working 
within a mathematical model of computation which permits description of
processes that cannot be carried out, even in principle, by any physical
computing device. What is it that one intends to learn by application of
these methods?


>
>-- 
>Peter D. Mosses | Computer Science Department | <pdmosses@daimi.aau.dk> 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Aarhus University           | Phone: +45 86 12 71 88 
>                | Ny Munkegade, Building 540  | Fax:   +45 86 13 57 25 
>                | DK-8000 Aarhus C,  Denmark  | Telex: 64767 aausci dk


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: Re: "Algebra": and Re: Semantic definition style
Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:47:40 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov18.014700.14864@cis.ohio-state.edu> ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden) writes:
>In article <56242@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>   ...
>>In any event, I've never been able to understand the virtue of working 
>>within a mathematical model of computation which permits description of
>>processes that cannot be carried out, even in principle, by any physical
>>computing device. What is it that one intends to learn by application of
>>these methods?
>
>If you look at recursion theory, you'll find that it has developed some
>rather interesting results about degrees of unsolvability by just such an
>approach.

You've misunderstood my point, perhaps I relied too much on the context.
I was responding to a post which argued that first order equational logic
was too restricted to allow description of programs. So, I assumed that
we were discussing the subject of the specification and verification of
computer programs and devices. In this field, it seems inexplicable to 
demand, on grounds of generality, that one permit description of physically
impossible computations. 

>From this work we know, for example, that natural numbers, a mathematical
>domain which we often use to model computations, permit the description of
>computations that can certainly not be carried out. In fact, in almost
>every domain within which we can describe those computations that could be
>carried out on a physical computing device, we can also describe processes
>which could not. We don't have a choice here, the power to describe the
>uncomputable just comes with the language that allows us to describe the
>computable.

I don't see how we learn this from the study of higher degrees of
unsolvability or from general recursion. It's quite obvious that we can
describe impossible *finite* computations --- e.g. one requiring 
Ackermann(100000,100000000000) steps. And, the standard results on
uncomputability can be derived without recourse to transfinite recursion,
oracles, ....
In any case, if someone advances a language L in which we can specify
programs, say: why would it be a flaw if L could only represent all
Turing computable programs, or even all  exponential time computable programs? 
Surely any feasable computation will fall within these domains. And, of 
course, it is incorrect to confuse the language for specification with 
the domain of mathematics available to us. For example, it seems perfectly
reasonable that one could specify a program in language L and prove a
property of the program using some theorem which could not be derived 
within L itself. 

>
>
>
>-- 
>
>/Bill


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: comp.specification
From: ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden)
Subject: Re: "Algebra": and Re: Semantic definition style
Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:47:00 GMT

In article <56242@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
   ...
>In any event, I've never been able to understand the virtue of working 
>within a mathematical model of computation which permits description of
>processes that cannot be carried out, even in principle, by any physical
>computing device. What is it that one intends to learn by application of
>these methods?

If you look at recursion theory, you'll find that it has developed some
rather interesting results about degrees of unsolvability by just such an
approach.

From this work we know, for example, that natural numbers, a mathematical
domain which we often use to model computations, permit the description of
computations that can certainly not be carried out. In fact, in almost
every domain within which we can describe those computations that could be
carried out on a physical computing device, we can also describe processes
which could not. We don't have a choice here, the power to describe the
uncomputable just comes with the language that allows us to describe the
computable.



-- 

/Bill

Newsgroups: comp.specification
From: zeil@renenutet.cs.odu.edu (Steven J. Zeil)
Subject: Re: Testing
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:45:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.120250.12884@cs.tcd.ie> emcdnnll@cs.tcd.ie (Eoin McDonnell) writes:

   Newsgroups: comp.specification
Path: daffodil!concert!gatech!destroyer!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!emcdnnll
   From: emcdnnll@cs.tcd.ie (Eoin McDonnell)
   Summary: Ref's req'd for use of formal spec's in software testing
   Keywords: Testing,formal specification
   Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
   Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:02:50 GMT
   Lines: 10


   Hi all,

   I'm interested in finding out how formal specifications can be used to
   help design test programmes for software.   Any references would be
   appreciated.

   Thanks,

   Eoin Mc Donnell.               emcdnnll@cs.tcd.ie



Formal specs can come into play in testing in two ways. 

First, all testing depends upon the existence of an "oracle" to
examine test inputs and program outputs and detect the presence of
failures (incorrect results).  This oracle is most often provided via
human inspection of the input/output data or via textual comparison
against a file of previously recorded expected results.  However, any
scheme for animating/evaluating specifications can also help to serve
as an oracle (at the risk of allowing errors in the specification that
were faithfully copied into the design to go undetected).  Such
automated aids can be of immense use in situations where many
thousands or tens of thousands of tests are being run.  



Second, the spec can be used as the source of information from which
test cases are generated or against which the suitability of tests
sets is measured.  Here's a sampler of several very different
approaches to such specification-based testing:

@article{Bouge/test-gen-logic,
   author = "L. Bouge and N. Choquet and L. Fribourg and M. C. Gaudel",
   journal = "Journal of Systems and Software",
   month = Nov,
   number = "4",
   pages = "343--360",
   title = "Test Sets Generation From Algebraic Specifications Using
		Logic Programming",
   volume = "6",
   year = "1986"
}

@article{Gannon/daists,
   author = "John Gannon and Paul Mc{M}ullin and Richard Hamlet",
   journal = "ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systesm",
   month = Jul,
   number = "3",
   pages = "211--223",
   title = "Data-Abstraction Implementation, Specification, and Testing",
   volume = "3",
   year = "1981"
}


@techreport{Luckham/anna-debugging,
   author = "David C. Luckham and Sriram Sankar and Shuzo Takahashi",
   address = "Stanford CA",
   institution = "Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory",
   month = Apr,
   number = "CSL--TR--89--379",
   title = "Two Dimensional Pinpointing: An Application of Formal
      Specification to Debugging Packages",
   year = "1989
"
}

@article{Wild/refinement-jtvr,
   author = "Christian Wild and Steven Zeil and Ji Chen and Gao Feng",
   journal = "{\rm to appear in} Journal of Software Testing,
   Verification, and Reliability",
   title = "Employing Accumulated Knowledge to Refine Test Cases",
   year = "1992-93"
   note = "also available as Old Dominion University report TR-91-14"
}

(Well, I couldn't resist putting ONE of my own papers in there.)

                                                     Steve Zeil
From: moreaux@litsun22.epfl.ch (Michel Moreaux)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: Re: semantics
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:37:39 GMT
Organization: Laboratoire d'informatique technique
In-reply-to: krone-j@news.cis.ohio-state.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 04:24:28 GMT


| 	I would like to see the ongoing discussion about semantics
| remain on the comp.specification news board, rather than at the
| email level.  I find the comments interesting and appropriate for
| this news group as a whole.

Agree entirely.

_Michel Moreaux.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Moreaux,                           | "Ceux qui ne savent rien en savent
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |  toujours tout autant que ceux qui
Departement d'Informatique                |  n'en savent pas plus qu'eux"
Laboratoire d'Informatique Technique      |                  P. Dac.
EL-Ecublens                               |___________________________________
CH-1015 Lausanne                           
Phone # : (21) 693-46-72,   e-mail : moreaux@litsun.epfl.ch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.specification
From: mori@kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Akira Mori)
Subject: Specification of OS kernel?
Organization: Department of Infomation Science, Kyoto University, Japan
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:30:41 GMT

Hi folks!

I am looking for a formal (hopefully equational) specification of
the kernel of an operationg system. I have seen some specifications
of simple compilers before.

We are considering the spec. transformation to deal with the
changes of data structures like seen in OS version mismatches.

Any pointer is appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.
--
Akira Mori
Information Science
Kyoto University
Japan
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: black@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (benjamin j black )
Subject: 16-node hypercube
Originator: black@studsys.mscs.mu.edu
Reply-To: black@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (benjamin j black )
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:19:48 GMT


Keywords:speed, speed, and more speed

	16 DSP CPU's (50MFLOPS each)
	2 MB 20ns SRAM per processor
	2 GB Disk space (SCSI-2)

	SPACE sub-microkernel OS, Dataparallel C compiler,etc.

	Any questions?
	black@studsys.mscs.mu.edu

 

Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: christos@bohemia.cs.colorado.edu (Christos Triantafillou)
Subject: HeNCE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:49:57 GMT


HeNCE is a high level interface to PVM.
Has anyone used that system? experiences?


--- Christos


Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: christos@bohemia.cs.colorado.edu (Christos Triantafillou)
Subject: PVM & HeNCE
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 01:12:51 GMT


There is a rumor that PVM treats a whole parallel system
(eg IPSC) like a single parallel node, that is, you can
send messages between different IPSC systems but not
between Ipsc's nodes. Is that true? Could someone with
PVM experience on systems like KSR-1, CM2 or CRAY comment on that?

Also, is there anyone out there that used HeNCE?
Any experiences?


--- Christos


Newsgroups: comp.parallel
From: tom@icase.edu (Tom Crockett)
Subject: Re: PVM vs. Express
Organization: ICASE/NASA Langley
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:17:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.190340.7465@hubcap.clemson.edu>, gropp@godzilla.mcs.anl.gov (William Gropp) writes:

>I'd like to correct this.  PVM 2.3 and 2.4 do NOT run on the iPSC/860, iPSC/2 
>or CM-2.  They DO run on the hosts of these machines, which is an entirely
>different matter.  Since PVM provides a SPMD/MIMD model, it is highly 
>unlikely that it will ever run "on" a CM-2.  Saying that it runs on these
>machines is highly misleading at best.
>

We have a project underway here at NASA Langley which partially corrects this deficiency for
the iPSC/860.  In addition to the iPSC/860 and its SRM host, you need a "back end" Ethernet
service node, and a workstation which you can designate as a "PVM host" for the iPSC.  Given
this, we have modified the PVM daemon and the PVM library so that you can include PVM calls
directly in your node programs.  These calls use the socket library under NX to communicate
with the daemon, which runs on the designated workstation.  This strategy eliminates the
extra layer of host software which was previously needed to translate between PVM calls and
NX calls, and also results in a substantial performance improvement by eliminating the
notoriously underpowered SRM from the process.

Most of this work was done by Mike Nelson (m.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov).  You can contact him
directly for more information.

Tom Crockett

ICASE
Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering

M.S. 132C				e-mail:  tom@icase.edu
NASA Langley Research Center		phone:  (804) 864-2182
Hampton,  VA  23681-0001

Newsgroups: comp.parallel