Current research in specifications is emphasizing the practical use of formal specifications in program design. One way to encourage their use in practice is to provide specification languages that are accessible to both designers and programmers. With this goal in mind, the Larch family of formal specification languages has evolved to support a two-tiered approach to writing specifications. This approach separates the specification of state transformations and programming language dependen-cies from the specification of underlying abstractions. Thus, each member of the Larch family has a subset derived from a programming language and another subset independent of any programming languages. We call the former interface languages, and the latter the Larch Shared Language. This paper focuses on Larch interface language specifications. Through examples, we illustrate some salient features of Larch/CLU, a Larch interface language for the programming language CLU. We give an example of writing an interface specification following the two-tiered approach and discuss in detail issues involved in writing interface specifications and their interaction with their Shared Language components.

Theory interpretation is a logical technique for relating one axiomatic theory to another with important applications in mathematics and computer science as well as in logic itself. This paper presents a method for theory interpretation in a version of simple type theory, called lutins, which admits partial functions and subtypes. The method is patterned on the standard approach to theory interpretation in rstorder logic. Although the method is based on a nonclassical version of simple type theory, it is intended as a guide for theory interpretation in classical simple type theories as well as in predicate logics with partial functions.

Summary. A semantics for the Clear specification language is given. The language of set theory is employed to present constructions corresponding to Clear's specification-combining operations, which are then used as the basis for a denotational semantics. This is in contrast to Burstall and Goguen's 1980 semantics which described the meanings of these operations