Sequential abstract-state machines capture sequential algorithms

Gurevich, Yuri

doi:10.1145/343369.343384

Cited by 344 publications

(407 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

398

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the target languages, the semantics of SPARQL is described by algebraic semantics whereas the semantics of Java can be defined by providing an Abstract State Machine [15]. More specifically, the SPARQL basic graph pattern is described according to an entailment regime.…”

Section: Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model‐Driven Specification of Ontology Translations

2012

Semantic Web and Model‐Driven Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The alignment of different ontologies requires the specification, representation and execution of translation rules. The rules need to integrate translations at the lexical, the syntactic and the semantic layer requiring semantic reasoning as well as low-level specification of adhoc conversions of data. Existing formalisms for representing translation rules cannot cover the representation needs of these three layers in one model. We propose a metamodel-based representation of ontology alignments that integrate semantic translations using description logics and lower level translation specifications into one model of representation for ontology alignments.

show abstract

Section: Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model‐Driven Specification of Ontology Translations

2012

Semantic Web and Model‐Driven Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If τ A (X, α) is defined, then ∆ A (X, α) is the set of non-trivial updates in ∆ + A (X, α). It may seem strange, particularly to a reader acquainted with [Gurevich 2000] and [Blass and Gurevich 2003b], to work with ∆ + rather than ∆. Why should we pay attention to trivial updates that have no effect on the transition computed by the algorithm and therefore have no effect on a run of the algorithm?…”

Section: Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ordinary interactive small-step algorithms, I

Blass

Gurevich

2006

ACM Trans. Comput. Logic

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first in a series of papers extending the Abstract State Machine Thesis -that arbitrary algorithms are behaviorally equivalent to abstract state machines -to algorithms that can interact with their environments during a step rather than only between steps. In the present paper, we describe, by means of suitable postulates, those interactive algorithms that (1) proceed in discrete, global steps, (2) perform only a bounded amount of work in each step, (3) use only such information from the environment as can be regarded as answers to queries, and (4) never complete a step until all queries from that step have been answered.We indicate how a great many sorts of interaction meet these requirements. We also discuss in detail the structure of queries and replies and the appropriate definition of equivalence of algorithms.Finally, motivated by our considerations concerning queries, we discuss a generalization of first-order logic in which the arguments of function and relation symbols are not merely tuples of elements but orbits of such tuples under groups of permutations of the argument places.

show abstract

“…This philosophy leads to a sharp mathematical definition, technically developed in [Gur00] and overviewed in [BG03], computationally realized in the theoretical programming language of Abstract State Machines [Gur00] and the implemented programming languages AsmL [AsmL] and Spec# [Spec#]. Models written in these modelling languages are used by a model-based software testing tool SpecExplorer, also developed at Microsoft Research [SpecExp].…”

Section: Behavioral Theory Of Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we shall repeatedly use the following results from [RR05](where Y −X is the set of differences of two states over the same carrier, see [Gur00,BG04a,RR05] for definitions):…”

Section: Accessibility Reachability and Indistinguishabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Model–Based Testing of Cryptographic Protocols

Rosenzweig

Runje

Schulte

2005

Trustworthy Global Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Modeling is a popular way of representing the behavior of a system. A very useful type of model in computing is an abstract state machine which describes transitions over first order structures. The general purpose model-based testing tool SpecExplorer (used within Microsoft, also available externally) uses such a model, written in AsmL or Spec#, to perform a search that checks that all reachable states of the model are safe, and also to check conformance of an arbitrary .NET implementation to the model. Spec Explorer provides a variety of ways to cut down the state space of the model, for instance by finitizing parameter domains or by providing predicate abstraction. It has already found subtle bugs in production software. First order structures and abstract state machines over them are also a useful way to think about cryptographic protocols, since models formulated in these terms arise by natural abstraction from computational cryptography. In this paper we explain this abstraction process, 'experiments as structures', and argue for its faithfulness. We show how the Dolev-Yao intruder model fits into SpecExplorer. In a word, the actions of the DolevYao intruder are the 'controllable' actions of the testing framework, whereas the actions of protocol participants are the 'observable' actions of the model. The unsafe states are the states violating say Lowe's security guarantees. Under this view, the general purpose software testing tool quickly finds known attacks, such as Lowe's attack on the NeedhamSchroeder protocol.

show abstract

Sequential abstract-state machines capture sequential algorithms

Cited by 344 publications

References 14 publications

Model‐Driven Specification of Ontology Translations

Model‐Driven Specification of Ontology Translations

Ordinary interactive small-step algorithms, I

Model–Based Testing of Cryptographic Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About