Results 1 
6 of
6
Axiomatizing Reflective Logics and Languages
 Proceedings of Reflection'96
, 1996
"... The very success and breadth of reflective techniques underscores the need for a general theory of reflection. At present what we have is a wideranging variety of reflective systems, each explained in its own idiosyncratic terms. Metalogical foundations can allow us to capture the essential aspects ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The very success and breadth of reflective techniques underscores the need for a general theory of reflection. At present what we have is a wideranging variety of reflective systems, each explained in its own idiosyncratic terms. Metalogical foundations can allow us to capture the essential aspects of reflective systems in a formalismindependent way. This paper proposes metalogical axioms for reflective logics and declarative languages based on the theory of general logics [34]. In this way, several strands of work in reflection, including functional, equational, Horn logic, and rewriting logic reflective languages, as well as a variety of reflective theorem proving systems are placed within a common theoretical framework. General axioms for computational strategies, and for the internalization of those strategies in a reflective logic are also given. 1 Introduction Reflection is a fundamental idea. In logic it has been vigorously pursued by many researchers since the fundamental wor...
Reflection in membership equational logic, manysorted equational logic, horn logic with equality, and rewriting logic
 In Gadducci and Montanari [33
, 2002
"... We show that the generalized variant of rewriting logic where the underlying equational specifications are membership equational theories, and where the rules are conditional and can have equations, memberships and rewrites in the conditions is reflective. We also show that membership equational log ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We show that the generalized variant of rewriting logic where the underlying equational specifications are membership equational theories, and where the rules are conditional and can have equations, memberships and rewrites in the conditions is reflective. We also show that membership equational logic, manysorted equational logic, and Horn logic with equality are likewise reflective. These results provide logical foundations for reflective languages and tools based on these logics, and in particular for the Maude language itself. 1
Formal Interoperability
, 1998
"... this paper I briefly sketch recent work on metalogical foundations that seems promising as a conceptual basis on which to achieve the goal of formal interoperability. Specificaly, I will briefly discuss: ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper I briefly sketch recent work on metalogical foundations that seems promising as a conceptual basis on which to achieve the goal of formal interoperability. Specificaly, I will briefly discuss:
Reflection in Rewriting Logic and its Applications in the Maude Language
 In IMSA'97, pages 128139. InformationTechnology Promotion Agency
, 1997
"... this paper applications of reflection in rewriting logic and Maude to the following areas: ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper applications of reflection in rewriting logic and Maude to the following areas:
Building and Executing Proof Strategies in a Formal Metatheory
 Advances in Artifical Intelligence: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, IA*AI'93, Volume 728 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1993
"... This paper describes how "safe" proof strategies are represented and executed in the interactive theorem prover GETFOL. A formal metatheory (MT) describes and allows to reason about object level inference. A class of MT terms, called logic tactics, is used to represent proof strategies. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper describes how "safe" proof strategies are represented and executed in the interactive theorem prover GETFOL. A formal metatheory (MT) describes and allows to reason about object level inference. A class of MT terms, called logic tactics, is used to represent proof strategies. The semantic attachment facility and the evaluation mechanism of the GETFOL system have been used to provide the procedural interpretation of logic tactics. The execution of logic tactics is then proved to be "safe" under the termination condition. The implementation within the GETFOL system is described and the synthesis of a logic tactic implementing a normalizer in negative normal form is presented as a case study. 1 Introduction As pointed out in [GMMW77], interactive theorem proving [GMW79, CAB + 86, Pau89] has been growing up in the continuum existing between proof checking [deB70, Wey80] on one side and automated theorem proving [Rob65, And81, Bib81] on the other. Interactive theorem...
A Reflective Framework for Formal Interoperability
, 1998
"... In practice we find ourselves in constant need of moving back and forth between different formalizations capturing different aspects of a system. For example, in a large software system we typically have very different requirements, such as functional correctness, performance, realtime behavior, co ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
In practice we find ourselves in constant need of moving back and forth between different formalizations capturing different aspects of a system. For example, in a large software system we typically have very different requirements, such as functional correctness, performance, realtime behavior, concurrency, security, and fault tolerance, which correspond to different views of the system and that are typically expressed in different formal systems. Often these requirements affect each other, but it can be extremely difficult to reason about their mutual interaction, and no tools exist to support such reasoning. This situation is very unsatisfactory, and presents one of the biggest obstacles to the use of formal methods in software engineering because, given the complexity of large software systems, it is a fact of life that no single perspective, no single formalization or level of abstraction suffices to represent a system and reason about its behavior. We need (meta)formal methods and tools to achieve Formal Interoperability, that is, the capacity to move in a mathematically rigorous way across the different formalizations of a system, and to use in a rigorously integrated way the different tools supporting these formalizations. We will develop new, formal interoperability methodologies and generic metatools that are expected to achieve dramatic advances in software technology and formal methods: