R. O. Sinnott, K. J. Turner. "Applying Formal Methods to Standard Development: The Open Distributed Processing Experience". Computer Standards & Interfaces Journal, volume 17, pages 615-630, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of a single consistent formalizafion of the clauses 8 and 9 of part 2, we would argue that the approach that 9 Each time when we mention RM ODP in the thesis, we refer to [21] was taken in part 4 hardly favors this kind of formalization. Detailed explanations of the approach may be found in [44]. The approach never considers explidfly the relations that exist between different concept categories (such as between basic modeling concepts (RM ODP 2 8) and specification concepts (RM ODP 2 9) In addition, it considers the concepts from RM ODP 2 8 and 2 9 without considering the basic ....

....in the part 3. This choice is justified by the standard, since the ODP conceptual framework from the part 2 is defined to support ODP viewpoints. It presents a general vision on modeling, the vision that should further be applied in the context of a particular ODP viewpoint. In particular, [44], reporting on experiences out of the standard development, clarifies: The relationsh betmeen Part 2 and Part 3 of the RM ODP may be seen as edaliation. That is Part 2 gives a basic interetation of a given concur and Part 3 gives a more ecialied version. The importance of a formal view on the ....

R. O. Sinnott, K. J. Turner. "Applying Formal Methods to Standard Development: The Open Distributed Processing Experience". Computer Standards & Interfaces Journal, volume 17, pages 615-630, 1995.

....of its results. Analyzing the causes that prevented the standardization of a single consistent formalization of the clauses 8 and 9 of part 2, we would argue that the approach that was taken in part 4 hardly favors this kind of formalization. Detailed explanations of the approach may be found in [33]. The approach never considers explicitly the relations that exist between different concept categories (such as between basic modeling concepts (RM ODP 2 8) and specification concepts (RM ODP 2 9) In addition, it considers the concepts from RM ODP 2 8 and 2 9 without considering the basic ....

....in the part 3. This choice is justified by the standard, since the ODP conceptual framework from the part 2 is defined to support ODP viewpoints. It presents a general vision on modeling, the vision that should further be applied in the context of a particular ODP viewpoint. Particularly, [33], reporting on experiences out of the standard development, clarifies: The relationship between Part 2 and Part 3 of the RM ODP may be seen as specialization. That is Part 2 gives a basic interpretation of a given concept and Part 3 gives a more specialized version. The importance of a formal ....

R.O. Sinnott, K.J. Turner, "Applying Formal Methods to Standard Development: The Open Distributed Processing Experience ". Computer Standards & Interfaces Journal, volume 17, pages 615-630, 1995.

....of the ODP concepts. This formalisation is achieved through interpreting each concept in terms of the constructs of a given formal specification language. Several approaches have been put forward to formalise the concepts of ODP, each with their own advantages and disadvantages as discussed in (Sinnott Turner 1995). Briefly these are: formalisation in natural language: here the approach is to write in English how the concept might best be modelled in a given formal language. The advantages of this approach are that it brings most understanding of the concept under consideration and it can be applied to all ....

Sinnott, R. & Turner, K. J. (1995), `Applying formal methods to standard development: The open distributed processing experience', Computer Standards & Interfaces 17, 615--630.

....of a given architecture defined intuitively in a formal language, e.g. a formal description technique. The architecture considered here is the RM ODP. There are numerous advantages to be gained from formalising the architecture of the RM ODP. Many of these advantages are argued in detail in [14, 15, 17]. The majority of advantages stem from the higher level of precision that is introduced through interpreting concepts formally, and the more detailed consideration of concepts required in doing so. This paper does not attempt to repeat an exposition of the advantages, but instead focuses on the ....

....and specification concepts. Another approach is based on providing specification templates. The third approach gives a direct formal semantics in mathematics for a subset of the computational language. These approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages, many of which are highlighted in [14]. For example, the direct formal approach captures the genericity of the computational language, but might be seen as overly mathematical. The interpretation approach brings a higher level of understanding of all concepts in all viewpoints, through requiring a detailed consideration of the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

R.O. Sinnott, Kenneth J. Turner. "Applying Formal Methods to Standard Development: The Open Distributed Processing Experience". Accepted for publication in Computer Standards and Interfaces Special Edition, 1995.

....be analysed in LOTOS. Thomas [22] also uses LOTOS, focussing like the present paper on the user interface to a telephone system, but detecting interactions by checking temporal properties against a LOTOS specification. So why not write LOTOS specifications directly It is the author s experience [21, 23, 27, 29] that LOTOS offers rather general features for specifying behaviour. In a particular application domain such as telecommunications services the specifier must bootstrap him herself to the architectural level at which systems should be described. Telecommunications services, for example, are ....

Richard O. Sinnott and Kenneth J. Turner. Applying formal methods to standard development: The Open Distributed Processing experience. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 17:615--630, October 1995.

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