Results 1 
9 of
9
Extended ML: Past, present and future
 PROC. 7TH WORKSHOP ON SPECIFICATION OF ABSTRACT DATA TYPES, WUSTERHAUSEN. SPRINGER LNCS 534
, 1991
"... An overview of past, present and future work on the Extended ML formal program development framework is given, with emphasis on two topics of current active research: the semantics of the Extended ML specification language, and tools to support formal program development. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An overview of past, present and future work on the Extended ML formal program development framework is given, with emphasis on two topics of current active research: the semantics of the Extended ML specification language, and tools to support formal program development.
Structured theory presentations and logic representations
 ANNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED LOGIC
, 1994
"... The purpose of a logical framework such as LF is to provide a language for defining logical systems suitable for use in a logicindependent proof development environment. All inferential activity in an object logic (in particular, proof search) is to be conducted in the logical framework via the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The purpose of a logical framework such as LF is to provide a language for defining logical systems suitable for use in a logicindependent proof development environment. All inferential activity in an object logic (in particular, proof search) is to be conducted in the logical framework via the representation of that logic in the framework. An important tool for controlling search in an object logic, the need for which is motivated by the difficulty of reasoning about large and complex systems, is the use of structured theory presentations. In this paper a rudimentary language of structured theory presentations is presented, and the use of this structure in proof search for an arbitrary object logic is explored. The behaviour of structured theory presentations under representation in a logical framework is studied, focusing on the problem of "lifting" presentations from the object logic to the metalogic of the framework. The topic of imposing structure on logic presentations...
Actors, Actions, and Initiative in Normative System Specification
"... The logic of norms, called deontic logic, has been used to specify normative constraints for information systems. For example, one can specify in deontic logic the constraints that a book borrowed from a library should be returned within three weeks, and that if it is not returned, the library shoul ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The logic of norms, called deontic logic, has been used to specify normative constraints for information systems. For example, one can specify in deontic logic the constraints that a book borrowed from a library should be returned within three weeks, and that if it is not returned, the library should send a reminder. Thus, the notion of obligation to perform an action arises naturally in system specification.
ComponentOriented Software Development with Π
 ISSTBERICHTE 21/94, ISST
, 1994
"... Despite the inherent flexibility of software as a material, experience has shown that the overall software architecture determines the system's adaptability and evolvability. In order to achieve adaptability und evolvability a software architecture has to consist of selfcontained building blocks ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Despite the inherent flexibility of software as a material, experience has shown that the overall software architecture determines the system's adaptability and evolvability. In order to achieve adaptability und evolvability a software architecture has to consist of selfcontained building blocks socalled software components and explicit descriptions of component connections. In this paper we propose a specific notion of a software component which requires the description of the provided features and the requirements to other software components without actually referencing other components. We discuss a language the \Pilanguage which supports the specification of such software components. In this approach a software system is given by identifying the components needed and explicitly defining the connections between them. The resulting component configuration itself forms a component which can be used in other contexts as well. This approach enforces by construction the notion of an independent and selfcontained component. We show the various elements of the \Pilanguage which allow the expression of important properties of software components. Finally, method and existing and envisaged tool support is discussed.
History and Future of Implicit and Inductionless Induction: Beware the Old Jade and The Zombie!
, 2005
"... In this survey on implicit induction I recollect some memories on the history of implicit induction as it is relevant for future research on computerassisted theorem proving, esp. memories that significantly differ from the presentation in a recent handbook article on “inductionless induction”. M ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this survey on implicit induction I recollect some memories on the history of implicit induction as it is relevant for future research on computerassisted theorem proving, esp. memories that significantly differ from the presentation in a recent handbook article on “inductionless induction”. Moreover, the important references excluded there are provided here. In order to clear the fog a little, there is a short introduction to inductive theorem proving and a discussion of connotations of implicit induction like “descente infinie”, “inductionless induction”, “proof by consistency”, implicit induction orderings (term orderings), and refutational completeness.
Some Thoughts on Algebraic Specification
 PROC. 3RD WORKSHOP ON THEORY AND APPLICATIONS OF ABSTRACT DATA TYPES
, 1985
"... ..."
unknown title
"... A formalisation of this programming methodology depends on some precise notion of the implementation of a specification by a lowerlevel specification. Previous notions have been given for the implementation of nonparameterised ([GTW 78], [Nou 79], [Hup 80], [EKP 80], [Ehr 82]) and parameterised ([ ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
A formalisation of this programming methodology depends on some precise notion of the implementation of a specification by a lowerlevel specification. Previous notions have been given for the implementation of nonparameterised ([GTW 78], [Nou 79], [Hup 80], [EKP 80], [Ehr 82]) and parameterised ([Gan 81], [Hup 81])*~ specifications, but none of these approaches deals fully with 'structured ' algebraic specifications (as in Clear [BG 77] or CIPL [Bau 81]) which may be constructed in a hierarchical fashion and may be loose (with an assortment of nonisomorphic models). We present a definition of implementation which agrees with our intuitive notions built upon programming experience and which handles such loose hierarchical specifications, based on a new (and seemingly fundamental) concept of the simulation of a theory by an algebra. We show how this definition extends to give a definition of the implementation of parameterised specifications. An example of an implementation is given and several other examples are sketched. We work within the framework of the Clear specification language [BG 77] which allows large specifications to be built from small easytounderstand bits. For most