The phrase "assertion language" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to programming, computer science, or formal logic where a specific language is used to make assertions or statements.
Example: "In our project, we will utilize an assertion language to define the conditions that must be met for the software to function correctly."
Alternatives: "declarative language" or "statement language".
In this direction a system-level assertion language is defined.
We derive an assertion based verification method and we show two instances based on different assertion languages: a decidable assertion language and CLP used as an assertion language.
We finally show two methods based on different assertion languages: a decidable assertion language and Horn clause logic used as assertion language.
In this paper, we describe the system-level assertion language and explain the corresponding synthesis method in our object-oriented system-level synthesis methodology; however the concept can be applied to any system-level design methodology with modifications to assertion types and synthesis method.
The assertion language allows verifying and debugging of SDN applications with dynamically changing verification conditions.
Beckett et al. [20] implemented an assertion language for SDN applications on top of VeriFlow.
Moreover, state-based models can be extended by assertion languages for expressing correctness properties as pre/post specification, safety properties or even temporal properties.
Most claims-based authorization now uses a set of standards called Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML).
SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) is an Authentication and Authorization protocol that Stanford is employing more and more to power single-sign-on and identity management underlying Stanford Login.
The majority flatly rejected that assertion, in language that may be helpful to the Justice Department in a separate racketeering suit against the tobacco industry pending in the federal appeals court in Washington.
John Nagl, a retired lieutenant colonel who is co-author of the Army's new counterinsurgency field manual, said in an interview that the military had been moving too slowly, and he questioned the military's assertion that language needs were difficult to assess since they were subject to changing global security conditions.
