English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the Spring of 1957, when the detailed logical design of the NBS PmOT [1] was begun, the need arose for choosing a satisfactory set of names for the more than 15,000 internal signals generated throughout the machine. These signals, distributed from package to package via the back wiring, corresponded to the variables in the Boolean equations that define the logicM structure of the machine. Each such signal had to be provided with a distinctive name. Finding a satisfactory system for selecting these names was particularly important because automatic techniques were to be used for converting the logical design of PIL6T into fabrication plans and machine-maintenance manuals. The nomenclature system, therefore, had to be compatible with these automarie techniques; at the same time, the nomenclature system had to conform to the existing habits of the logical designers. Designers generally like to invent picturesque mnemonic names to help them remember the functions of the various signals; automatic techniques, on the other hand, demand more standardized nomenclature. A compromise system, in which pronounceable names were generated by a formula on a computer, was developed and has been used successfully at NBS for the past three years. Since the system is applicable both to other machine designs and to other applications, it is described here in enough detail to permit the full set of names to be generated either on other computers or for other purposes. Table 1 summarizes some of the principal characteristics of the system. No claim of linguistic refinement or completeness is made for the system. A list of 20,810 three-letter and four-letter code words generated from formulas somewhat similar to ours has been published by Luhn [2]. Luhn's words are self-demarcating but tended in many instances to be too unpronounceable for our purposes. I t seems probable that many additional pronounceable combinations could be added to our system without unduly complicating ~he generating formula.

A System for Generating ``Pronounceable'' Names Using a Computer