B. Klin, P. Ho man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder, and T. Mossakowski. Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural speci cations. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 2136 of LNCS, pages 451-463. Springer, 2001. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
CASL - The Common Algebraic Specification.. - Mossakowski.. (2003) Self-citation (Tarlecki Mossakowski) (Correct)
No context found.
B. Klin, P. Ho man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder, and T. Mossakowski. Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural speci cations. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 2136 of LNCS, pages 451-463. Springer, 2001.
Global Development via Local Observational Construction Steps - Bidoit, al. (2002) (1 citation) Self-citation (Tarlecki) (Correct)
No context found.
B. Klin, P. Ho man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder and T. Mossakowski. Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural speci cations. Proc. 26th Intl. Symp. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science MFCS'01, Springer LNCS 2136, 451-463 (2001).
Global Development via Local Observational Construction Steps - Bidoit, Sannella, Tarlecki (2002) (1 citation) Self-citation (Tarlecki) (Correct)
No context found.
B. Klin, P. Ho#man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder and T. Mossakowski. Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural specifications. Proc. 26th Intl. Symp. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science MFCS'01, Springer LNCS 2136, 451--463 (2001).
Architectural specifications in CASL - Bidoit, Sannella, al. (1999) (4 citations) Self-citation (Tarlecki) (Correct)
....specifications without non trivial subsorts. For arbitrary Casl specifications with subsorts, the compatibility properties become undecidable in general. These undecidable properties are clearly identified, with some practically useful approximate decision procedures proposed see [CoFI01c] [KHT 01] and [SMT 01] for full details. Consider the following simple example: spec SP 0 = sort s end spec SP a = sort s op a : s end spec SP b = sort s op a, b : s end spec SP c = sort s op a, c : s end spec SP d = sort s op a, b, c, d : s axiom d = b # d = c end Then the generic unit ....
B. Klin, P. Ho#man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder and T. Mossakowski. Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural specifications. Proc. International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS
Towards Trustworthy Specifications I: Consistency Checks - Roggenbach, Schröder Self-citation (Schr) (Correct)
....additional diculties that arise from subsorting; see [22] for a detailed discussion. In fact, whether or not a diagram as above is amalgamable is, in general, undecidable; however, practically relevant cases are covered by a polynomial algorithm which is currently implemented in the Casl tool set [16]. The relevant point here is that conservativity of the morphism 1 2 in the above diagram implies conservativity of the morphism 3 4 , provided that the diagram is amalgamable (cf. 10] A typical example is given by instantiations of parametrized speci cations: a parametrized speci ....
.... conservativity calculus; this will possibly involve use of the development graph [3, 18] It is expected that a forthcoming tool will allow semiautomatic consistency proofs, with the syntactical premises discharged automatically via syntactic analysis or the more complex algorithms discussed in [16] and the hard ones output as formal proof obligations. ....
B. Klin, P. Ho man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder, and T. Mossakowski, Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural specications, Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, LNCS, Springer, 2001, to appear.
Towards Trustworthy Specifications I: Consistency Checks - Roggenbach, Schröder Self-citation (Schr) (Correct)
....additional diculties that arise from subsorting; see [16] for a detailed discussion. In fact, whether or not a diagram as above is amalgamable is, in general, undecidable; however, practically relevant cases are covered by a polynomial algorithm which is currently implemented in the Casl tool set [11]. The relevant point here is that conservativity of the morphism 1 2 in the above diagram implies conservativity of the morphism 3 4 , provided that the diagram is amalgamable (cf. 8] A typical example is given by instantiations of parametrized speci cations: a parametrized speci ....
....as well as the implementation of tool support for the conservativity calculus. It is expected that a forthcoming tool will allow semiautomatic consistency proofs, with the syntactical premises discharged automatically via syntactic analysis or the more complex algorithms discussed in [11] and the hard ones output as formal proof obligations. ....
B. Klin, P. Ho man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder, and T. Mossakowski, Checking amalgamability conditions for CASL architectural specications, Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2001, LNCS, Springer, to appear.
Casl: The Common Algebraic Specification Language: Proof calculus - CoFI (1998) (21 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
B. Klin, P. Ho man, A. Tarlecki, L. Schroder, and T. Mossakowski. Checking amalgamability conditions for Casl architectural speci cations. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 2136 of LNCS, pages 451-463. Springer, 2001. 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY 81
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