Language translation, automatic

Prior to the fitting, the chemical reaction model on which the analysis will be based needs to be defined. As mentioned above ReactLab and other modem programs incorporate a model translator that allows the definition in a natural chemistry language and which subsequently translates automatically into internal coefficient information that allows the automatic construction of the mathematical expressions required by the numerical and spieciation algorithms. Note for each reaction an initial guess for the rate constant has to be supplied. The ReactLab model is for this reaction is shown in Figure 9. 

Nenkova, A., J. Chae, A. Louis, and E. Pitler. 2010. Structural features for predicting the linguistic quality of text Applications to machine translation, automatic summarization and human-authored text. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, edited by E. Krahmer and M. Theune. Lecmre Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 5790. Berlin Springer-Verlag. pp. 222-241. 

Translations of standard formulas using different Excel language versions should be performed automatically by Excel. Nevertheless, revalidation has to carried out when switching the Excel language. At least the language-specific explanations and training instructions using the text fields have to be translated. 

Another aspect of a very different nature also merits attention. For complex reaction schemes, it can be very cumbersome to write the appropriate set of differential equations and their translation into computer code. As an example, consider the task of coding the set of differential equations for the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (see Section 7.5.2.4). It is too easy to make mistakes and, more importantly, those mistakes can be difficult to detect. For any user-friendly software, it is imperative to have an automatic equation parser that compiles the conventionally written kinetic model into the correct computer code of the appropriate language [37-39],... 

Model translation feature to provide automatic computer code generation using either program generators or data-driven simulators and thus eliminating the need to teach users a simulation language. 

Our toolset therefore supports refinement of specifications to code (still within the same notation) not just manually but also (in many cases) automatically. Verification conditions are generated to ensure that manual refinements precisely conform to the specification. The code is then automatically refined to a slightly lower-level notation internally before being translated to a standard programming language. 

For output, we provide several presentation languages, such that output in these languages can be constructed automatically (by rule-based translators). Each form of presentation can then be customised to the particular needs of one group of users. For example, we generate an overview diagram and detailed tables of information as part of tlie specification process but we have also produced Z texts as well as translations in other notations (SSADM dataflow and entity life histoiy diagrams). Section 6.5 describes tlie use of translation to interface to another toolset. 

We adopted the first approach anotlier company adopted the second. In both cases, it is important to note tliat the specifications (our output and their input) are written in fonnal languages automatic translation between the two notations is therefore possible. If we detennine user requirements and formalise a specification in our notation, and they accept a (formal) specification in their notation, then we can collaboratively proceed from user requirements to executable code by rule and with very little manual involvement (and therefore very few errors), provided only tliat a translator exists between tlie two fonnal languages. 

Table B8 of Part 3 lists Data flow and Control flow as HR (highly recommended) for SIL 3 and SIL 4. It should be remembered, however, that static analysis packages are only available for procedural high-level languages and require a translator which is language specific. Thus, static analysis cannot be automatically applied to PLC code other than by means of manual code walkthrough, which loses the advantages of the 100% algebraic capability of an automated package.

Since we have the GENSAL language (see Figure 2) for description of Markush structures , and software for translation of them into machine internal representations, we are able to derive search representations automatically. Great... 

In order to do this, it is necessary first to translate the Assmbler in WSL and this is done by means of an automatic translator. The translation is very simple-minded. Each instruction of assonbly language mtq>s into several lines oi WSL because the WSL has to reflect every aspect of the semantics of the instruction, such as the setting of flags, evm if these implicit aspects are not always needed. In this way, it is possible to simplify the verification of the implementation of the Assembler-to-WSL translator. 

Most automated tools require translation to an intermediate language before they can analyse the code. Automatic translators are available for some languages, but for others one must either translate manually or write a new translator. Some language features do not have an equivalent in the intermediate language even with the automatic translators they must be manually translated. The static analysis of the software depends on its translation model and the more skilled the analyst, the more skilled the model produced. The validation of the intermediate language model needs to be considered, as this can be a major problem. 

---