![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi to all!
My idea is to create a wiki page in which Model Checking Tools can be listed; I would write something like this Comparison_of_wiki_software.
Here the only MC tools list that I've found in wiki, but there is [ this] database where a lot of tools are listed.
I cannot index all the tools, help me to expand the table.
PoorUser ( talk) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone please add Alloy ( http://alloytools.org/), I'm not too sure of what to put in some columns so can't do it myself. JidGom ( talk) 21:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I see here a lot of tools with "FUSC" license... googling for "fusc license" redirects me to this very page on wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.9.165 ( talk) 16:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what graphical specification means?
We have been informed by our computer science students at Univ. Grenoble Alpes that most entries of this page had been deleted by user Chrissymad in March 2018.
The reason for such deletions is unclear ("not linkfarm") and the deletion seems to have been made on a random basis, as most deleted entries correspond to actual model checkers well known from the scientific community, for which published articles or even books exist. The result is a blatantly incomplete list of model checking tools.
The deletion was undone, but user Chrissymad did it again, still without explanation, removing later additions as well. So, we had no other choice than restoring again and complain about this situation.
It is a fact of life that the formal verification community is active and that universities of many countries compete and co-operate to develop many model checkers. This should be accepted as is, rather than making a random selection of a handful tools.
Vasywriter ( talk) April 26 2018 (UTC)
Chrissymad, please explain the criteria you used to alter the list of model checkers. For instance, why did you decide to remove the TLA+ tool, written by a Turing award winner, while keeping the DREAM tool, a prototype tool (still in version beta 0.7 on Sourceforge) developed by a PhD student between 2005 and 2009?
Vasywriter ( talk) April 28 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, the question does not concern your (or someone else's) opinion on this page, but your own actions. So far, you failed to provide any justification for the selective deletions you brought. Please contribute to the discussion. Any proposal for consensus? -- Vasywriter ( talk) 09:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a list of criteria for deciding whether a model checker should be listed or not. How about the following to start with:
@ Vasywriter, Chrissymad, SQL: Do you agree with the above list?
I recommend to add one more column: Participation in comparative evaluations or competitions.
-- Dirk Beyer (not an active Wikipedia user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.133.199.106 ( talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
On March 10, between 19:14 and 19:34, Chrissymad deleted contents in 10 different Wikipedia articles, many of which dealing with software (neuroimaging, spectrometry, interactive geometry, etc.) but also with startups in Pakistan or Armenian and Indian journalists.
In the present article, 36 entries were deleted in one single minute (between 19:32 and 19:33).
For these deletions, Chrissymad left the following edit summary: "rmv linkfarm, unsourced, nn".
This is blatantly false:
Chrissymad, in light of these remarks, would you agree to revert your changes? -- Vasywriter ( talk) 17:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the following list of criteria complete then?
If yes, could you please re-add all model checkers that satisfy the four criteria, Vasywriter or Chrissymad? That would be great! (And I would prefer to mention these criteria in the article, not only here on the talk page, such that readers can understand why one is included and another not.) Dirkbeyer ( talk) 05:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. Can you proceed by inserting in the page the criteria you proposed, so that cleaning can be done next on the basis of these criteria? Thanks -- Vasywriter ( talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Done with including the criteria on the Article page and hope this is helpful for similar situations in the future. Dirkbeyer ( talk) 22:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Presumably TCTL is a variant of CTL, but the TCTL page now redirects to Two-transistor logic. Would it be reasonable to change the TCTL links to CTL, or should TCTL be made into a disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.31.28 ( talk) 18:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)