Proof in VDM: A Practitioner’s Guide

Bicarregui, Juan; Fitzgerald, John S.; Lindsay, Peter; Moore, Richard D.; Ritchie, Brian

doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-2033-9

Cited by 73 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 We de ne the notion of underspec-protection in three steps. First we de ne the notion of a primed LSL trait 3 and term. That notion is used to describe a notion of a completelyde ned" term.…”

Section: Underspeci Cation Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protective Interface Specifications

Leavens

Wing

1998

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interface specification of a procedure describes the procedure's behavior using pre-and postconditions. These pre-and postconditions are written using various functions. If some of these functions are partial, or underspecified, then the procedure specification may not be well-defined. We show how to write pre-and postcondition specifications that avoid such problems, by having the precondition ``protect'' the postcondition from the effects of partiality and underspecification. We formalize the notion of protection from partiality in the context of specification languages like VDM-SL and COLD-K. We also formalize the notion of protection from underspecification for the Larch family of specification languages, and for Larch show how one can prove that a procedure specification is protected from the effects of underspecification. KeywordsProtective specifications, Specification languages, Underspecification, Partiality, Larch Disciplines Databases and Information Systems | Information Security AbstractThe interface speci cation of a procedure describes the procedure's behavior using pre-and postconditions. These pre-and postconditions are written using various functions. If some of these functions are partial, or underspeci ed, then the procedure speci cation may not be well-de ned.We show how to write pre-and postcondition speci cations that avoid such problems, by having the precondition protect" the postcondition from the e ects of partiality and underspeci cation. We formalize the notion of protection from partiality in the context of speci cation languages like VDM-SL and COLD-K. We also formalize the notion of protection from underspeci cation for the Larch family of speci cation languages, and for Larch show h o w one can prove that a procedure speci cation is protected from the e ects of underspeci cation.

show abstract

Section: Underspeci Cation Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protective Interface Specifications

Leavens

Wing

1998

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[BHL90] for VDM and Z) are some examples for formal specification languages in SE and ISD. Current lines of research are, for example, typechecking of specifications and the development of mechanizable proof theories based on the formal semantics of the languages [AGM93], [BFL93]. Although this is a very rough survey, it illustrates that to a some extent research in knowledge engineering (KE) reinvents the wheel.…”

Section: Comparison With Software Engineering and Information Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of languages which operationalize and formalize KADS models of expertise

Fensel¹,

Harmelen

1994

The Knowledge Engineering Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.In the field of Knowledge Engineering, dissatisfaction with the rapid-prototyping approach has led to a number of more principled methodologies for the construction of knowledgebased systems. Instead of immediately implementing the gathered and interpreted knowledge in a given implementation formalism according to the rapid-prototyping approach, many such methodologies centre around the notion of a conceptual model: an abstract, implementation independent description of the relevant problem solving expertise. A conceptual model should describe the task which is solved by the system and the knowledge which is required by it. Although such conceptual models have often been formulated in an informal way, recent years have seen the advent of formal and operational languages to describe such conceptual models more precisely, and operationally as a means for model evaluation. In this paper, we study a number of such formal and operational languages for specifying conceptual models. In order to enable a meaningful comparison of such languages, we focus on languages which are all aimed at the same underlying conceptual model, namely that from the KADS method for building KBS. We describe eight formal languages for KADS models of expertise, and compare these languages with respect to their modelling primitives, their semantics, their implementations and their applications. Future research issues in the area of formal and operational specification languages for KBS are identified as the result of studying these languages. The paper also contains an extensive bibliography of research in this area.

show abstract

“…Recent efforts and success in formal methods have been focused on building 'heavy' tools for formal specifications, such as proof tools (e.g. Mural [3] for VDM, EVE [23] for Z etc) and model checkers (e.g. FDR [22] for CSP).…”

Section: Intro-class Queriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic Web for Extending and Linking Formalisms

Dong

Sun

Wang

2002

FME 2002:Formal Methods—Getting IT Right

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The diversity of various formal specification techniques and the need for their effective combinations requires an extensible and integrated supporting environment. The Web provides infrastructure for such an environment for formal specification and design because it allows sharing of various design models and provides hyper textual links among the models. Recently the Semantic Web Activity proposed the idea of having data on the web defined and linked in a way that it can be used for automation, extension and integration. The success of the Semantic Web may have profound impact on the web environment for formal specifications, especially for extending and integrating different formalisms. This paper demonstrates how RDF and DAML can be used to build a Semantic Web environment for supporting, extending and integrating various formal specification languages. Furthermore, the paper illustrates how RDF query techniques can facilitate specification comprehension.

show abstract

Proof in VDM: A Practitioner’s Guide

Cited by 73 publications

References 0 publications

Protective Interface Specifications

Protective Interface Specifications

A comparison of languages which operationalize and formalize KADS models of expertise

Semantic Web for Extending and Linking Formalisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About