K. Lano and H. Haughton. A Comparative Description of Object-oriented Specification Language. In K. Lano and H. Haughton, editors, Object Oriented Specification Case Studies, Object Oriented Series. Prentice-Hall, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....properties for approaches integrating object oriented concepts and Petri Nets. Based on these properties, typical problems of existing proposals are shortly surveyed. Section three introduces OOPr T 1 A detailed discussion of related problems with existing proposals in this area can be found in [22]. Approaches for the formalization of the UML are discussed in [14] 21] Models, a novel approach for the integration of Petri Nets and object oriented concepts. Section four illustrates the use of OOPr T Models as visual programming language with the description of a concurrent system for ....

K. Lano and H. Haughton. 'A Comparative Description of Object-Oriented Specification Languages'. In K. Lano and H. Haughton, editors, 'Object-Oriented Specification Case Studies'. Prentice Hall International, 1994.

....5 followed by conclusions in Section 6. 2 Related Work There have been a number efforts designed to incorporate object oriented concepts into formal specification languages. MooZ [5] and Object Z [6] extend Z by adding object oriented structures while maintaining its model based semantics. Z [7] and OOZE [8] also extend Z but provide semantics based on algebra and category theory. Although these Z extensions provide enhanced structuring techniques, they do not provide improved specification acquisition methods. FOOPS [9] is an algebraic, object oriented specification language based on ....

K. Lano and H. Houghton, "A Comparative Description of Object-Oriented Specification Languages, " in Object-Oriented Specification Case Studies (K. Lano and H. Houghton, eds.), pp. 20-- 54, Prentice-Hall, 1994.

....[21] and Stepney et al. 29] The second of these concentrates specifically on Z, is a collection of solutions to the same two challenge problems, usually by the inventors of the various notations used. The first collection is more general: it contains a comparative survey of different notations [22] and several different case studies, the most interesting of which are a MooZ specification of the Unix file system (cf. Sufrin s paper [30] discussed above) and a general discussion by Alencar and Goguen [1] of MooZ. There is also a shorter paper, by Mitra [26] describing VDM . Case studies ....

K. Lano and H. Haugton. A comparative description of object-oriented specification languages. In Lano and Haughton [21].

....contributions and plans for the future. 2 Related Work There have been a number efforts designed to incorporate object oriented concepts into formal specification languages. MooZ [14] and Object Z [15] extend Z by adding object oriented structures while maintaining its model based semantics. Z [16] and OOZE [17] also extend Z but provide semantics based on algebra and category theory. Although these Z extensions provide enhanced structuring techniques, they do not provide improved specification acquisition methods. FOOPS [18] is an algebraic, object oriented specification language based on ....

K. Lano and H. Houghton, "A Comparative Description of Object-Oriented Specification Languages," in Object-Oriented Specification Case Studies (K. Lano and H. Houghton, eds.), pp. 20--54, Prentice-Hall, 1994.

....in Prolog and has the status of a prototype. There are the following equivalences in Z : class = type = theory instance = object = element = model refinement = subtyping = conformant subclassing : 2 For a comparison of Z with other object oriented specification languages see [30]. The BNF syntax of Z is given in Appendix A. B. Semantics The axiomatic semantics of Z is based on the category of classes and refinements between them [32] Formal definitions of the key concepts of Z , such as the refinement relationship, subtyping, internal class consistency, ....

K. Lano and H. Haughton, "A Comparative Description of Object-Oriented Specification Languages," in [31], pages 20-- 54.

....see [16,26] Z extends the specification language Z by allowing the definition of classes. The current version of Z also supports object identity, history constraints, and explicit method preconditions. For a comparison of Z with other object oriented specification languages see [15]. Since plain Z has a well defined semantics [25] the semantics of Z is defined in terms of a translation into the plain Z. The model based semantics for Z is defined in [17] and [14] investigates the modelbased semantics for object oriented extensions to Z in general. The ....

Lano, K. and H.Haughton. A Comparative Description of Object-Oriented Specification Languages. In [16], pp. 20-54.

No context found.

K. Lano and H. Haughton. A Comparative Description of Object-oriented Specification Language. In K. Lano and H. Haughton, editors, Object Oriented Specification Case Studies, Object Oriented Series. Prentice-Hall, 1993.

No context found.

Lano, K.; Haughton, H.: "A Comparative Description of Object-Oriented Specification Languages". in [LaHa1994b]. pp. 20-54.

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