Talk:Specification language

Explicit list of languages

I disagree to the removal of the explicit list of specification languages made by Allan McInnes. For example, if I want to find the link from the present page to the Common Algebraic Specification Language, I have to click onto the category "Specification languages" and then on the subcategory "Formal specification languages". This is a way of hiding the examples. --Tillmo 17:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a way of preventing the article from turning into a big list which duplicates information already found in the category pages. If you want to actually use CASL as an example within the text of the article (perhaps describing the difference between algebraic specification languages and other formal specification languages), that's fine. But a big list of languages will come to dominate the article, while duplicating the category information. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A valid argument that rests on a false premise. Not all the languages in the list have associated articles, so they cannot be duplicated in the category pages. Furthermore, not all those languages with articles have an appropriate category on their page, so these are also not duplicated on the category pages. The deleted list is appended for information. Views on how to move forward are awaited. --ARAJ 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actor model
• Alloy language
• Assertion definition language
• B specification language
• Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML)
• Common Algebraic Specification Language (CASL)
• Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP)
• Extended ML
• Formal Object-Role Modeling Language (FORML)
• Java Modeling Language (JML)
• Object-Z
• Planguage
• Perfect (Perfect Developer, PD)
• SDL
• Unified Modeling Language
• VDM specification language
• Z specification language
• Hartmann pipeline
• Statechart assertions

My view on how to move forward:

• If a language article doesn't have appropriate categories, then add them.
• If a language doesn't have an associated article, and the language is notable, then create an article for it.
• Cover non-notable languages by providing an external link to a site which is more appropriate for listing every specification language (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information).

Wikipedia articles are generally supposed to be more prose than lists. If you want to create some kind of master list of specification languages, then I'd prefer to see it in a separate article from this one. But I personally don't think such a list is really appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)