Results 1 
4 of
4
From Total Equational to Partial First Order Logic
, 1998
"... The focus of this chapter is the incremental presentation of partial firstorder logic, seen as a powerful framework where the specification of most data types can be directly represented in the most natural way. Both model theory and logical deduction are described in full detail. Alternatives to pa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The focus of this chapter is the incremental presentation of partial firstorder logic, seen as a powerful framework where the specification of most data types can be directly represented in the most natural way. Both model theory and logical deduction are described in full detail. Alternatives to partiality, like (variants of) error algebras and ordersortedness are also discussed, showing their uses and limitations. Moreover, both the total and the partial (positive) conditional fragment are investigated in detail, and in particular the existence of initial (free) models for such restricted logical paradigms is proved. Some more powerful algebraic frameworks are sketched at the end. Equational specifications introduced in last chapter, are a powerful tool to represent the most common data types used in programming languages and their semantics. Indeed, Bergstra and Tucker have shown in a series of papers (see [BT87] for a complete exposition of results) that a data type is semicompu...
Using Limits of Parchments to Systematically Construct Institutions of Partial Algebras
 Recent Trends in Data Type Specifications. 11th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types, volume 1130 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1996
"... this paper, so we leave them out here. Thus we can apply the idea of combining things via colimits to institutions themselves, with the special point that we have to take limits here instead of colimits. Taking limits in CAT results in categories of "amalgamated objects", i. e. we put signatures an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, so we leave them out here. Thus we can apply the idea of combining things via colimits to institutions themselves, with the special point that we have to take limits here instead of colimits. Taking limits in CAT results in categories of "amalgamated objects", i. e. we put signatures and models together at the level of single objects. In contrast to this, sentences are combined with colimits in Set (due to the contravariant direction of the sentence component). That is, sets of sentences are combined. To show how this works, we introduce some wellknown institutions and morphisms between them.
Representations, Hierarchies, and Graphs of Institutions
, 1996
"... For the specification of abstract data types, quite a number of logical systems have been developed. In this work, we will try to give an overview over this variety. As a prerequisite, we first study notions of {\em representation} and embedding between logical systems, which are formalized as {\em ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
For the specification of abstract data types, quite a number of logical systems have been developed. In this work, we will try to give an overview over this variety. As a prerequisite, we first study notions of {\em representation} and embedding between logical systems, which are formalized as {\em institutions} here. Different kinds of representations will lead to a looser or tighter connection of the institutions, with more or less good possibilities of faithfully embedding the semantics and of reusing proof support. In the second part, we then perform a detailed ``empirical'' study of the relations among various wellknown institutions of total, ordersorted and partial algebras and firstorder structures (all with Horn style, i.e.\ universally quantified conditional, axioms). We thus obtain a {\em graph} of institutions, with different kinds of edges according to the different kinds of representations between institutions studied in the first part. We also prove some separation results, leading to a {\em hierarchy} of institutions, which in turn naturally leads to five subgraphs of the above graph of institutions. They correspond to five different levels of expressiveness in the hierarchy, which can be characterized by different kinds of conditional generation principles. We introduce a systematic notation for institutions of total, ordersorted and partial algebras and firstorder structures. The notation closely follows the combination of features that are present in the respective institution. This raises the question whether these combinations of features can be made mathematically precise in some way. In the third part, we therefore study the combination of institutions with the help of socalled parchments (which are certain algebraic presentations of institutions) and parchment morphisms. The present book is a revised version of the author's thesis, where a number of mathematical problems (pointed out by Andrzej Tarlecki) and a number of misuses of the English language (pointed out by Bernd KriegBr\"uckner) have been corrected. Also, the syntax of specifications has been adopted to that of the recently developed Common Algebraic Specification Language {\sc Casl} \cite{CASL/Summary,Mosses97TAPSOFT}.
Algebraic System Specification and Development: Survey and Annotated Bibliography  Second Edition 
, 1997
"... Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.5.4 Special Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.6 Semantics of Programming Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.6.1 Semantics of Ada . . . ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.5.4 Special Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.6 Semantics of Programming Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.6.1 Semantics of Ada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.6.2 Action Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.7 Specification Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.7.1 Early Algebraic Specification Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.7.2 Recent Algebraic Specification Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.7.3 The Common Framework Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5 Methodology 57 5.1 Development Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.1.1 Applica...