Burstall, R. and J. Goguen, "An Informal Introduction to Specification using CLEAR", The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, ed. R. Boyer and J. Stothers Moore, Academic Press, pp 185213, 1981.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....for composing theories from other theories. However, the operations in SPECWARE can largely be simulated by means of theories and theory interpretations in PVS. In summary, theory interpretation has been a standard tool in specification languages since the early work on HDM [RLS79] and Clear [BG81] PVS implements theory interpretations as a simple extension of the mechanism for importing parametric theories. PVS theory interpretations subsume the corresponding capabilities available in other specification frameworks. 23 24 Future Work A number of interesting extensions may be ....

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In The Correctness Problem in Computer Science. Academic Press, London, 1981.

....represented as functions in the meta language, and metalevel functions are extensional. We can observe this by casting our Term example above into a simulated evaluation session in Haskell, and noticing that id prints as Abs fn. id = Abs ( x x) Main id Abs fn Junk. HaAS admits junk [13]. i.e. there are terms in the meta language with type Term that do not represent any legal object program. Consider the example: junk = Abs ( x case x of App f y y ; Const n x) No legal object abstraction behaves in this way, analyzing its bound variable. Loss of expressi1ty. ....

R. Burstall and J. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In R. Boyer and J. Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185-213. Academic, 1981. Reprinted in Software Specification Techniques, Narain Gehani and Andrew McGettrick, editors, Addison-Wesley, 1985, pages 363- 390.

....with any algebraic specification formalism. We detail this single suggestion since it includes the two others. We begin with a quick survey of the formalisms concerned by this extension. For algebraic specifications, there are mainly ACT ONE [17] ASF [4] OBJ [19, 22] ASL [52] Larch [24] CLEAR [9], PLUSS [6] CASL [15] etc. Concerning process algebras, we cite CCS [36] CSP [26] ACP [5] basic LOTOS [7] calculus [37, 38] etc. Generalization of the Algebraic Specification Language A first idea is to conserve the CASL formalism as a target language. Indeed, 41] details the syntactic ....

R. M. Burstall and J. Goguen. An Informal Introduction to Specification Using CLEAR. In R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore, eds., The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185--213. Academic Press, New York, 1981.

....we wish to compose these types of language. For the first type, data oriented, we distinguish state or model oriented formalisms (e.g. VDM [29] Z [41] B [25] and properties or axiomatic oriented ones (algebraic specifications: ACT ONE [13] OBJ [15, 18] ASL [45] Larch [21] CLEAR [10], PLUSS [17] CASL [12] etc) For behaviour oriented formalisms, there are the CCS [32] CSP [23] ACP [6] and others) process algebras, transition systems [3] and Petri nets [34] In this work, languages of both families are considered. The first family contains formalisms concerning data, ....

R. M. Burstall and J. Goguen. An Informal Introduction to Specification Using CLEAR. In R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore, eds., The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185--213. Academic Press, New York, 1981.

....independent fashion. Examples of such programming languages abound, and include Simula 67 [Dahl 70] CLU [Liskov 81] Smalltalk [Goldberg 84] and Ada [Barnes 80] Examples of specification languages, which are hardly less numerous but perhaps less well known, include Larch [Guttag 85] Clear [Burstall 81] Iota [Nakajima 80] and Z [Abrial 80] A programming method that exploits the distinction between the specification and implementation of an abstraction enjoys two advantages. The implementor of an abstraction needs to know nothing about the program in which the implementation will be ....

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An Informal Introduction to Specifications using CLEAR. In R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185-- 213. Academic Press, London, 1981.

....for composing theories from other theories. However, the operations in SPECWARE can largely be simulated by means of theories and theory interpretations in PVS. In summary, theory interpretation has been a standard tool in specification languages since the early work on HDM [RLS79] and Clear [BG81] PVS implements theory interpretations as a simple extension of the mechanism for importing parametric theories. PVS theory interpretations subsume the corresponding capabilities available in other specification frameworks. 23 24 Chapter 6 Future Work A number of interesting extensions may ....

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In The Correctness Problem in Computer Science. Academic Press, London, 1981.

....of this consolidation is that many features included in systems supporting formal specification are somewhat independent of the language or logic being used. In this area, there has been quite substantial progress in the last decade. An example of a system designed to address generality is Clear [6, 7], which allows the use of multiple logics introduced as what Clear calls institutions. A more recent general system is Isabelle, 20 which provides substantial automated support for specifying logics. In particular, Isabelle offers a good library of such logics. It includes: ffl Many sorted ....

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using clear. In N. Gehani and A. D. McGettrick, editors, Software Specification Techniques, pages 363--389. Addison-Wesley, 1986.

....of X FORK (which is also trivial to check) Furthermore, D FORK is the biggest description, in the sense that it contains as many theorems as possible, that is included in XFORK by forgetting up and down. This is the semantics of derivation of a theory along a signature morphism used in CLEAR [Burstall and Goguen 81] The relationship between these constructions around FORK can be summarised by the diagram: X FORK D FORK FORK We should stress that the need for these extensions and derivations is not violating our claims for supporting modular specification. Having specified components separately, we have ....

....into different ports. TEMPORAL THEORIES AS MODULARISATION UNITS FOR CONCURRENT SYSTEM SPECIFICATION 23 Although these operations on theory presentations may seem to be too cumbersome, they are trivial examples of well known constructions that are available in CLEAR like specification languages [Burstall and Goguen 81] going from FORK to X FORK is an extension (a particular case of enrichment) and going from X FORK to D FORK is a derivation. Hence, any specification language would make these operations easy to apply. Finally, it is important to stress that whereas the final description D FORK is the one ....

R.Burstall and J.Goguen, "An Informal Introduction to Specifications using Clear", in R.Boyer and J.Moore (eds) The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press 1981, 185213

....2 proof rules T T T T T T T AFRO IC SK SEM OO V2 2 Note that these merging functions require, effectively (though not strictly see [1] that local signatures are disjoint. If the dependency relation were generalised to admit renaming i.e. effectively to implement the notion of morphism [14], then this restriction would not be necessary. LPF Theories, Dependency and VDM by e.g. 2] we will take advantage in Afrodite of the proof assistant tool Mural [1] developed for reasoning about VDM specifications and VDM developments. This is a natural deduction logical frame system (i.e. proof ....

Burstall R.M. and Goguen J. An informal introduction to specifications using clear. In Boyer R.S. and Moore J.S., editors, . Academic Press, 1981.

....has the advantage of getting simple bugs out of the way. 28 6. Because we have a single framework within which all problem domains are formalized, we have the advantage of reusability; work done about one domain can be reused in another. Also, specifications are parameterized and can be composed [14, 33] because they are in a programming language. Since plans are parameterized and can be composed, we allow parameterized and composable designs as well. Both promote reusability. 7. Our formalization also allows us to specify problems with arbitrary constraints including efficiency requirements, ....

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An Informal Introduction to Specifications using CLEAR, pages 363--390. In Gehani and McGettrick [34], 1986.

....almost the same as those in [SB83] union is inessentially different) The theory building operations of the specification language CLEAR [BG80] may be defined in terms of these primitives. A few concrete examples should help to clarify the motivation behind structured theory presentations. See [BG81] SB83] and Section 4 for further examples. We will consider structured theory presentations over the logic EQ defined in Section 2. Example 3.6 Let SigmaGroup = type G constant ffl : G functions ffi : G Theta G G inv : G G and EqGroup = f8g:G: ffl ffi g = g; 8g:G: g ffi ffl = g; ....

R. Burstall and J. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using CLEAR. In R. S. Boyer and J S. Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185--213, Academic Press, New York, 1981.

....declarations and proof obligations (although this generality falls short of the institutional framework [17] The qualification mechanism is the main exception to this independence. The basic ideas of how to combine theories in a modular fashion can be found in the specification language Clear [2, 16]. 10.1 Qualification In this section we define a function qualify(1; q; X) that applies to names, shapes, vocabularies, structures, and theories. We will define its action on each of these subdomains separately. Definition 10.1 Function qualify applies to names as follows: qualify(n; q; X) ....

Rod Burstall and Joseph Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In Robert Boyer and J Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185--213. Academic Press, 1981.

.... following main activities: ffl the precise specification of component parts ffl the combination of specifications to form structured specifications ffl the creation of modules and the possible further combination of modules to form the complete system With the exception of the work on Clear, [1], and the languages based on the syntax and semantics of Clear, most of the previous work on specification has concentrated on the decomposition of specifications into smaller units in order to make them more manageable. Emphasis should now be on the combining of specifications and of modules and ....

R. A. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In Boyer and Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science. Academic Press, 1981.

No context found.

Rod Burstall and Joseph Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In Robert Boyer and J Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185--213. Academic, 1981.

....[109] for a more detailed discussion of the educational uses of OBJ. 1. 1 A Brief History of OBJ OBJ was designed in 1976 by Goguen [43] using error algebras to extend algebraic abstract data type theory with error handling and partial functions; this first design also used ideas from Clear [8, 10] for parameterized modules, thus giving birth to parameterized programming. The first implementations of OBJ were done from 1977 to 1979 at UCLA by Joseph Tardo and Joseph Goguen. OBJ0 [45] was based on unsorted equational logic, while OBJT used error algebras plus an image construct for ....

....fixes made at Oxford. Although the syntax of OBJ3 is close to that of OBJ2, it has a different implementation based on a simpler approach to order sorted rewriting [101] and it also provides much more sophisticated parameterized programming. OBJ2 and OBJ3 can be seen as implementations of Clear [8, 10], where the chosen logic is order sorted equational logic. Other implementations of OBJ1 include UMIST OBJ from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology [20] Abstract Pascal from the University of Manchester [105] and MC OBJ from the University of Milan [14] the first ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Rod Burstall and Joseph Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In Robert Boyer and J Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185--213. Academic, 1981.

No context found.

Burstall, R. and J. Goguen, "An Informal Introduction to Specification using CLEAR", The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, ed. R. Boyer and J. Stothers Moore, Academic Press, pp 185213, 1981.

No context found.

R. Burstall and J. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In R. Boyer and J. Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, International Lecture Series in Computer Science, chapter 4, pages 185--213. Academic Press, 1981. 142

No context found.

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using CLEAR. In [BM81], pages 185--214. 1981.

No context found.

R.M. Bumall and J.A. Goguen, "An Informal Introduction to Specifications Using CIF. AR," in R. Boyer and J. Moore (eds.), The Coectnes Problem in Comuter Science, Academic Pre New York, 1981, 185-213. -

No context found.

R. Burstall and J. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using Clear. In: The Correctness Problem in Computer Science (R. Boyer and J.S. Moore, eds.), 185--213. Academic Press (1981).

No context found.

Burstall, R. M. and Goguen, J. A. (1981), "An Informal Introduction to Specifications using Clear", in The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, R.S. Boyer and J. Strother Moore, eds., Academic Press.

No context found.

Burstall, R.M. and Goguen, J.A. An informal introduction to specifications using CLEAR. The Correctness Problem in Computer Science (R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, eds.), pp. 185-213, Academic Press (1981).

No context found.

R.M. Burstall and J.A. Goguen. An Informal Introduction to Specifications using Clear. In R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pages 185-- 213, Academic Press, London, 1981. 29 pages.

No context found.

R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. An informal introduction to specifications using CLEAR. In

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