Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T17:29:17.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property-oriented semantics of structured specifications†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

DONALD SANNELLA  and
ANDRZEJ TARLECKI
DONALD SANNELLA
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom Website: homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/dts/
ANDRZEJ TARLECKI
Affiliation:
Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Website: www.mimuw.edu.pl/~tarlecki/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider structured specifications built from flat specifications using union, translation and hiding with their standard model-class semantics in the context of an arbitrary institution. We examine the alternative of sound property-oriented semantics for such specifications, and study their relationship to model-class semantics. An exact correspondence between the two (completeness) is not achievable in general. We show through general results on property-oriented semantics that the semantics arising from the standard proof system is the strongest sound and compositional property-oriented semantics in a wide class of such semantics. We also sharpen one of the conditions that does guarantee completeness and show that it is a necessary condition.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , e240205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The work reported in this paper was partially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, grant N206 493138 (AT).

References

Bergstra, J. A., Heering, J. and Klint, P. (1990) Module algebra. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 37 (2)335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidoit, M. and Mosses, P. D. (eds.) (2004) CASL User Manual. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2900. (Also available at http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/cofi/wiki/index.php/CASL.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borzyszkowski, T. (2002) Logical systems for structured specifications. Theoretical Computer Science 286 (2)197–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borzyszkowski, T. (2005) Generalized interpolation in first order logic. Fundamenta Informaticae 66 (3)199–219.Google Scholar
Burstall, R. M. and Goguen, J. A. (1977) Putting theories together to make specifications. In: Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston1045–1058.Google Scholar
Burstall, R. M. and Goguen, J. A. (1980) The semantics of Clear, a specification language. In: Bjørner, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1979 Copenhagen Winter School on Abstract Software Specification. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 86 292–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstall, R. M. and Goguen, J. A. (1981) An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In: Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J. S. (eds.) The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press 185–213. (Also in: Gehani, N. and McGettrick, A. D. (eds.) (1986) Software Specification Techniques, Addison-Wesley.)Google Scholar
Chang, C.-C. and Keisler, H. J. (1990) Model Theory, third edition, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Diaconescu, R. (2008) Institution-Independent Model Theory, Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Diaconescu, R., Goguen, J. A. and Stefaneas, P. (1993) Logical support for modularisation. In: Huet, G. and Plotkin, G. (eds.) Logical Environments, Cambridge University Press 83–130.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Wagner, E. G. and Thatcher, J. W. (1983) Algebraic specifications with generating constraints. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Barcelona. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 154 188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goguen, J. A. and Burstall, R. M. (1992) Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 39 (1)95–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goguen, J. A. and Roşu, G. (2002) Institution morphisms. Formal Aspects of Computing 13 (3–5)274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goguen, J. A. and Roşu, G. (2004) Composing hidden information modules over inclusive institutions. In: From Object-Orientation to Formal Methods. Essays in Memory of Ole-Johan Dahl. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2635 96–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, R., Sannella, D. and Tarlecki, A. (1994) Structured presentations and logic representations. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 67 113–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennicker, R., Wirsing, M. and Bidoit, M. (1997) Proof systems for structured specifications with observability operators. Theoretical Computer Science 173 (2)393–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacQueen, D. and Sannella, D. (1985) Completeness of proof systems for equational specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE- 11 (5)454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meseguer, J. (1989) General logics. In: Ebbinghaus, H.-D. (ed.) Logic Colloquium '87, Granada, North-Holland275–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossakowski, T., Autexier, S. and Hutter, D. (2006) Development graphs – proof management for structured specifications. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 67 (1–2)114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosses, P. D. (ed.) (2004) CASL Reference Manual. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, P. H. (1991) A simple algebraic proof of the equational interpolation theorem. Algebra Universalis 28 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roşu, G. and Goguen, J. A. (2000) On equational Craig interpolation. Journal of Universal Computer Science 6 (1)194–200.Google Scholar
Sannella, D. and Tarlecki, A. (1988) Specifications in an arbitrary institution. Information and Computation 76 (2–3)165–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannella, D. and Tarlecki, A. (2012) Foundations of Algebraic Specification and Formal Software Development, Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, an EATCS Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannella, D. and Wirsing, M. (1983) A kernel language for algebraic specification and implementation. In: Karpinski, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1983 International Conference on Foundations of Computation Theory, Borgholm. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 158 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannella, D., Sokołowski, S. and Tarlecki, A. (1992) Toward formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: Parameterisation revisited. Acta Informatica 29 (8)689–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlecki, A. (1986) Bits and pieces of the theory of institutions. In: Pitt, D. H., Abramsky, S., Poigné, A. and Rydeheard, D. E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tutorial and Workshop on Category Theory and Computer Programming, Guildford. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 240 334–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlecki, A. (2000) Towards heterogeneous specifications. In: Gabbay, D. and de Rijke, M. (eds.) Frontiers of Combining Systems 2 Studies in Logic and Computation 7, Research Studies Press 337–360.Google Scholar
Tarlecki, A. (2011) Some nuances of many-sorted universal algebra: A review. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 104 89–111.Google Scholar