Are The Two Synthesis Paths Different

At the beginning, we highlighted several differences in the approaches taken in the two paths through the System Architect s Workbench. These differences were the use of style-specific vs. general synthesis algorithms, the handling of interactions between synthesis steps, and the method of knowledge representation. 

The style-specific approach gained some advantage from knowing how different parts of the behavioral description mapped onto its notion of high level structure. For SUGAR, this was accomplished by annotating the description with qualifiers. As discussed previously, research on APARTY has shown how this partitioning can be done automatically. 

The style-specific SUGAR approach uses bus selection and delayed binding to control its interactions. Essentially the bus model selected suggests the high level structure, and the delayed binding splits the 

The mixture of purely algorithmic and rule-based knowledge representation methods is an appropriate approach to follow. Where algorithmic solutions are available, they clearly win. However, the higher levels of design are difficult to quantify and thus rule-based approaches will be appropriate in the initial stages of CAD system development until more algorithmic solutions can be discovered. 

---