Results 1 
7 of
7
A runtime assertion checker for the Java Modeling Language (JML)
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE (SERP ’02), LAS VEGAS
, 2002
"... ..."
Algebraic Specification of Concurrent Systems
, 1999
"... State Machines" (ASM). 13.4.1 Evolving algebras (abstract state machines) The basic idea of the "evolving algebras" (see, for instance, [Gur93,Gur95]) is perfectly summarized by their name. Essentially an evolving algebra (specification) consists of a description of a (nonlabeled) transition system ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
State Machines" (ASM). 13.4.1 Evolving algebras (abstract state machines) The basic idea of the "evolving algebras" (see, for instance, [Gur93,Gur95]) is perfectly summarized by their name. Essentially an evolving algebra (specification) consists of a description of a (nonlabeled) transition system, whose states are algebras on the same homogeneous signature built over the same universe (including Boolean values). Some of the operation symbols are qualified as "static" and their interpretation is the same in any (algebra which is a) state. The transitions are defined by rules of the following form: econd ) up 1 ; : : : up k where, for each j = 1; : : : ; k, the function update up j has form f j (e j 1 ; : : : ; e j n j ) := e j ; econd, e 1 1 , : : : , e 1 n1 , e 1 , : : : , e k 1 , : : : , e k nk , e k are "descriptions" (any possible mathematically intelligible expressions) of elements of the universe, the first describing a Boolean value, and for j = 1; : : : ; ...
StateBased Extension of CASL
, 2000
"... A statebased extension of the algebraic specification language CASL is presented. It permits the specification of the static part of a complex dynamic system by means of CASL and the dynamic part by means of the facilities described in the paper. The dynamic system is defined as possessing a number ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A statebased extension of the algebraic specification language CASL is presented. It permits the specification of the static part of a complex dynamic system by means of CASL and the dynamic part by means of the facilities described in the paper. The dynamic system is defined as possessing a number of states and a number of operations (procedures) for transforming one state into another. Each state possesses one and the same static part specified by CASL and a varying part specified by additional tools. The varying part includes dynamic sorts/functions/predicates and dependent functions/predicates. The dependent functions/predicates are specified by formulae using the names of the dynamic functions/predicates so that each time one of the last ones is updated the corresponding former ones are also updated. The updates of the dynamic entities are produced by procedures which are specified by means of preconditions, postconditions, and dynamic equations.
Algebraic state machines
 Proc. 8th Internat. Conf. Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, AMAST 2000. LNCS 1816
, 2000
"... Abstract. We introduce the concept of an algebraic state machine. This is a state transition machine all parts of that are described by algebraic and logical means. This way we base the description of state transition systems exclusively on the concept of algebraic specifications. Also the state of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We introduce the concept of an algebraic state machine. This is a state transition machine all parts of that are described by algebraic and logical means. This way we base the description of state transition systems exclusively on the concept of algebraic specifications. Also the state of an algebraic state machine is represented by an algebra. In particular, we describe the state spaces of the state machine by algebraic techniques, and the state transitions by special axioms called transition rules. Then we show how known concepts from algebraic specifications can be used to provide a notion of parallel composition with asynchronous interaction for algebraic state machines. As example we introduce a notion of objectoriented component and show how algebraic state machines can formalize such components. 1
Relating abstract datatypes and Zschemata
 In Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques  Selected Papers, volume 1827 of Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci
, 1999
"... Abstract. In this paper we investigate formally the relationship between the notion of abstract datatypes in an arbitrary institution, found in algebraic specification languages like Clear, ASL, and CASL; and the notion of schemata from the modeloriented specification language Z. To this end the in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper we investigate formally the relationship between the notion of abstract datatypes in an arbitrary institution, found in algebraic specification languages like Clear, ASL, and CASL; and the notion of schemata from the modeloriented specification language Z. To this end the institution S of the logic underlying Z is defined, and a translation of Zschemata to abstract datatypes over S is given. The notion of a schema is internal to the logic of Z, and thus specification techniques of Z relying on the notion of a schema can only be applied in the context of Z. By translating Zschemata to abstract datatypes, these specification techniques can be transformed to specification techniques using abstract datatypes. Since the notion of abstract datatypes is institution independent, this results in a separation of these specification techniques from the specification language Z and allows them to be applied in the context of other, e.g. algebraic, specification languages. 1
Using Algebraic Specification Languages for ModelOriented Specifications
, 1996
"... It is common belief that there is a substantial difference between modeloriented (eg. Z and VDM) and algebraic specification languages (eg. LSL and ACTONE) wrt. their applicability to the specification of software systems. While modeloriented specification languages are assumed to be suited b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It is common belief that there is a substantial difference between modeloriented (eg. Z and VDM) and algebraic specification languages (eg. LSL and ACTONE) wrt. their applicability to the specification of software systems. While modeloriented specification languages are assumed to be suited better for the description of state based systems (abstract machines), algebraic specification languages are assumed to be better for abstract datatype specifications. In this paper we shall demonstrate how an algebraic specification language (the Larch Shared Language) can be used to write specifications of abstract machines in the style of Z and how support tools for algebraic specification languages, eg. type checker and theorem provers, can be used to reason about abstract machines. Keywords abstract data type, algebraic specification, modeloriented specification, Z, Larch Shared Language, abstract machine, institution iii 1. Introduction In the literature (eg. [16, 15]), t...
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...