Example Specifications in Z

Stepney, Susan; Barden, Rosalind; Cooper, David

doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3552-4_2

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many program specification formalisms (Predicate Calculus, object oriented Z [26], Larch CORBA [15], Anna [16]) are highly expressive, but pay for this expressiveness by giving up decidable reasoning (item iii). Without effective reasoning, one cannot automatically determine if two specifications are compatible, leaving the unpleasant possibility of run time exceptions and errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability

Borgida¹,

Dévanbu²

Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an open component market place, interface description languages (IDLs) such as CORBA's provide for the consumer only a weak guarantee (concerning type signatures) that a software service will work in a particular context as anticipated. Stronger guarantees, regarding the intended semantics of the service, would help, especially if formalized in a language that allowed static checking of compatibility between the server and the client's service descriptions.We propose an approach based on a family of formalisms called description logics (DLs), providing three examples of the use of DLs to augment IDL: (1) for the CORBA Cos Relationship service; (2) for capturing information models described using STEP Express, the ISO standard language used in the manufacturing domain (and a basis of the OMG PDM effort); and (3) constraints involving methods.DLs, while being less powerful, do offer certain advantages over traditional formal specification techniques. First, they typically support decidable (sometimes even efficient) reasoning algorithms. Second, DLs excel at modeling natural domains, and are thus well-suited for specifying applicationand domain-specific services.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability

Borgida¹,

Dévanbu²

Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Example Specifications in Z

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability

Adding more "DL" to IDL: towards more knowledgeable component inter-operability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About