Borgida, A.; Devanbu, P.: Adding more "DL" to IDL: Towards more Knowledgeable Component Inter-Operability. Proceedings of the 21 International Conference on Software Engineering, 1999, pp. 378 -- 387.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....address interoperability of objects at the behavioral sublevel, but still far for tackling the whole semantic level. In particular, we count now with notations that can capture the functional semantics of objects (such as those based in pre post conditions, rewriting logic, or description logics [6]) even when they are computationally untractable due to their intrinsic complexity. However, we do not have so many options (if any) for coping with the rest of the object semantics so far. Probably this is one of the major challenges of the software engineering community in we want to e#ectively ....

A. Borgida and P. Devanbu. Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operabiltity. In Proc. of ICSE-21, pages 378--387, Los Angeles, May 1999.

....signature, e.g. Beugnard et al. [3] However, there is still a long way for it to be adopted in practice. In particular, we note that the current proposal for CORBA components still do not address the issues of specifying interface behaviour and interaction constraints. Borgida and Devanbu [4] investigated using description logics to specify certain behavioural and interaction semantics of component interface as extensions to the current commercial interface definition languages. The work emphasises decidability and static checking of semantic specifications. It has shown a few ....

....of algebraic constraints and pattern constraints [11] Its constraints specification language is much more complex and powerful because it is used for the specification of external interaction protocols and internal computation behaviour of a component. As mentioned above, Borgida and Devanbu [4] proposed to use description logics, and Bastide et al. [2] proposed to use Petri nets, to specify certain types of component interaction protocols. The notation for the specification of interaction protocols in our approach is very simple. The key constructs are the few temporal relational ....

A. Borgida and P. Devanbu. Adding more "DL" to IDL: Towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability. In Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 378--387, Los Angeles, USA, May 1999.

....object computing, interoperability with good decoupling can be achieved through technologies such as CORBA in combination with interface description languages such as IDL. Such languages have a serious drawback: they only allow capabilities to be matched by signature, but not by their semantics [3]. Languages such as EIFFEL [14] with its Design by contract approach which allows to specify pre and postconditions as well as invariants) or Z have the drawback that their formalisms are so generic that reasoning with them is undecidable in general. In the case of EIFFEL, this entails that ....

....or [15] are unsuitable for description problems of this kind. As we will discuss, the known description logics formalisms, when extended by the constructs necessary to express these ordering constraints, become undecidable. In a nutshell, description logics, when used for capability description [3], are meant to provide a convenient way for defining inputs and outputs of agents, together with invariants that can be useful for AI planning. For example, and SomeMethod (the in Amplitude) the out Amplitude) same as in.burst out.burst) would declare a capability SomeMethod that accepts an ....

Borgida, A., Devanbu, P.: Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability, in Proceedings of ICSE'99 (1999).

.... (e.g. 1, 17] More impressively, DLs have found applications in other areas involving information processing, such as databases [6, 16] semi structured data [12, 13] information integration [15, 9] as well as more general problems such as configuration [28] and software engineering [7, 21]. In Description Logics, one takes an object centered view, where the world is modeled as individuals, connected by binary relationships (here called roles) and grouped into classes (called concepts) In every DL system the concepts of the application domain are described by concept descriptions ....

.... modeling and, in description logics, to help identify tractable sets of concept constructors (e.g. restricting same as to attributes) In fact, same as restrictions are quite important from a practical point of view, because they support the modeling of actions and their components (e.g. [7]) A second distinction, between attributes as total versus partial functions had not been considered so essential until now. This paper has shown that this distinction can sometime have significant e#ects. In particular, we have first shown that the approach for computing subsumption of Classic ....

A. Borgida and P. Devanbu. Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 378--387, Los Angeles, CA USA, 1999. ACM.

.... (e.g. 1, 17] More impressively, DLs have found applications in other areas involving information processing, such as databases [6, 16] semi structured data [12, 13] information integration [15, 9] as well as more general problems such as configuration [28] and software engineering [7, 21]. In Description Logics, one takes an object centered view, where the world is modeled as individuals, connected by binary relationships (here called roles) and grouped into classes (called concepts) In every DL system the concepts of the application domain are described by concept descriptions ....

.... modeling and, in description logics, to help identify tractable sets of concept constructors (e.g. restricting same as to attributes) In fact, same as restrictions are quite important from a practical point of view, because they support the modeling of actions and their components (e.g. [7]) A second distinction, between attributes as total versus partial functions had not been considered so essential until now. This paper has shown that this distinction can sometime have significant effects. In particular, we have first shown that the approach for computing subsumption of ....

A. Borgida and P. Devanbu. Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 378--387, Los Angeles, CA USA, 1999. ACM.

No context found.

Borgida, A.; Devanbu, P.: Adding more "DL" to IDL: Towards more Knowledgeable Component Inter-Operability. Proceedings of the 21 International Conference on Software Engineering, 1999, pp. 378 -- 387.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC