TL;DR: A Comprehensive grammar of the English language as mentioned in this paper, a comprehensive grammar of English language, a Comprehensive grammar for English language, and a comprehensive grammars of English, is an example of such a grammar.
Abstract: A Comprehensive grammar of the English language , A Comprehensive grammar of the English language , کتابخانه دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و خدمات بهداشتی درمانی کرمان
TL;DR: DeMarco's "Structured Analysis and System Specification" as mentioned in this paper is the final paper chosen for inclusion in this book of classic articles on the structured revolution, and it is a good summary of the current state of the art in structured analysis.
Abstract: DeMarco's "Structured Analysis and System Specification" is the final paper chosen for inclusion in this book of classic articles on the structured revolution. It is last of three on the subject of analysis, and, together with Ross/Schoman [Paper 22] and Teichroew/Hershey [Paper 23], provides a good idea of the direction that structured analysis will be taking in the next few years.
Any competent systems analyst undoubtedly could produce a five-page essay on "What's Wrong with Conventional Analysis." DeMarco, being an ex-analyst, does so with pithy remarks, describing conventional analysis as follows"
"Instead of a meaningful interaction between analyst and user, there is often a period of fencing followed by the two parties' studiously ignoring each other... The cost-benefit study is performed backwards by deriving the development budget as a function of expected savings. (Expected savings were calculated by prorating cost reduction targets handed down from On High.)"
In addition to providing refreshing prose, DeMarco's approach differs somewhat --- in terms of emphasis --- from that of Teichroew/Hershey and of Ross/Schoman. Unlike his colleagues, DeMarco stresses the importance of the maintainability of the specification. Take, for instance, the case of one system consisting of six million lines of COBOL and written over a period of ten years by employees no longer with the organization. Today, nobody knows what the system does.t Not only have the program listings and source code been lost --- a relatively minor disaster that we all have seen too often --- but the specifications are completely out of date. Moreover, the system has grown so large that neither the users nor the data processing people have the faintest idea of what the system is supposed to be doing, let alone how the mysterious job is being accomplished! The example is far from hypothetical, for this is the fate that all large systems eventually will suffer, unless steps are taken to keep the specifications both current and understandable across generations of users.
The approach that DeMarco suggests --- an approach generally known today as structured analysis --- is similar in form to that proposed by Ross and Schoman, and emphasizes a top-down, partitioned, graphic model of the system-to-be. However, in contrast to Ross and Schoman, DeMarco also stresses the important role of a data dictionary and the role of scaled-down specifications, or minispecs, to be written in a rigorous subset of the English language known as Structured English.
DeMarco also explains carefully how the analyst proceeds lrom a physical description of the user's current system, through a logical description of that same system, and eventually into a logical description of the new system that the user wants. Interestingly, DeMarco uses top-down, partitioned dataflow diagrams to illustrate this part of the so-called Project Life Cycle --- thus confirming that such a graphic model can be used to portray virtually any system.
As in other short papers on the subject, the details necessary for carrying out DeMarco's approach are missing or are dealt with in a superficial manner. Fortunately, the details can be found: Listed at the end of the paper are references to three full-length books and one videotape training course, all dealing with the kind of analysis approach recommended by DeMarco.
TL;DR: This chapter discusses language pedagogy in the context of English as an international language, bilingualization and localized learning, and metalanguage and interlanguage.
Abstract: Preface Acknowledgements 1. The theory of practice 2. Parameters in language pedagogy 3. Proper words in proper places 4. The ownership of English 5. English as an international language 6. English for specific purposes 7. The scope of linguistic description 8. The appropriate language for learning 9. Pedagogic design 10. Metalanguage and interlanguage 11. Bilingualization and localized learning 12. Taking account of the subject Conclusion Bibliography Index of names Index
TL;DR: The approach that DeMarco suggests --- an approach generally known today as structured analysis --- is similar in form to that proposed by Ross and Schoman, and emphasizes a top-down, partitioned, graphic model of the system-to-be.
Abstract: DeMarco's "Structured Analysis and System Specification" is the final paper chosen for inclusion in this book of classic articles on the structured revolution. It is last of three on the subject of analysis, and, together with Ross/Schoman [Paper 22] and Teichroew/Hershey [Paper 23], provides a good idea of the direction that structured analysis will be taking in the next few years.
Any competent systems analyst undoubtedly could produce a five-page essay on "What's Wrong with Conventional Analysis." DeMarco, being an ex-analyst, does so with pithy remarks, describing conventional analysis as follows"
"Instead of a meaningful interaction between analyst and user, there is often a period of fencing followed by the two parties' studiously ignoring each other... The cost-benefit study is performed backwards by deriving the development budget as a function of expected savings. (Expected savings were calculated by prorating cost reduction targets handed down from On High.)"
In addition to providing refreshing prose, DeMarco's approach differs somewhat --- in terms of emphasis --- from that of Teichroew/Hershey and of Ross/Schoman. Unlike his colleagues, DeMarco stresses the importance of the maintainability of the specification. Take, for instance, the case of one system consisting of six million lines of COBOL and written over a period of ten years by employees no longer with the organization. Today, nobody knows what the system does.t Not only have the program listings and source code been lost --- a relatively minor disaster that we all have seen too often --- but the specifications are completely out of date. Moreover, the system has grown so large that neither the users nor the data processing people have the faintest idea of what the system is supposed to be doing, let alone how the mysterious job is being accomplished! The example is far from hypothetical, for this is the fate that all large systems eventually will suffer, unless steps are taken to keep the specifications both current and understandable across generations of users.
The approach that DeMarco suggests --- an approach generally known today as structured analysis --- is similar in form to that proposed by Ross and Schoman, and emphasizes a top-down, partitioned, graphic model of the system-to-be. However, in contrast to Ross and Schoman, DeMarco also stresses the important role of a data dictionary and the role of scaled-down specifications, or minispecs, to be written in a rigorous subset of the English language known as Structured English.
DeMarco also explains carefully how the analyst proceeds lrom a physical description of the user's current system, through a logical description of that same system, and eventually into a logical description of the new system that the user wants. Interestingly, DeMarco uses top-down, partitioned dataflow diagrams to illustrate this part of the so-called Project Life Cycle --- thus confirming that such a graphic model can be used to portray virtually any system.
As in other short papers on the subject, the details necessary for carrying out DeMarco's approach are missing or are dealt with in a superficial manner. Fortunately, the details can be found: Listed at the end of the paper are references to three full-length books and one videotape training course, all dealing with the kind of analysis approach recommended by DeMarco.
TL;DR: Carnap's entire theory of language structure appeared in The Logical Syntax of Language (1934) as mentioned in this paper, which led to his famous "Principle of tolerance" by which everyone is free to mix and match the rules of his logic in any way he wishes.
Abstract: Rudolf Carnap's entire theory of Language structure "came to me," he reports, "like a vision during a sleepless night in January 1931, when I was ill." This theory appeared in The Logical Syntax of Language (1934). Carnap argued that many philosophical controversies really depend upon whether a particular language form should be used. This leads him to his famous "Principle of tolerance" by which everyone is free to mix and match the rules of his language and therefore his logic in any way he wishes. In this way, philosophical issues become reduced to a discussion of syntactical properties, plus reasons of practical convenience for preferring one form of language to another. In a tour de force of precise reasoning, Carnap also indicated how two model languages could be constructed. This is one of three books which Open Court is making available in paperback reprint in its Open Court Classics series. The other two are Carnap's The Logical Structure of the World and Schlick's General Theory of Knowledge.