We review the origins of structural operational semantics. The main publication ‘A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, ’ also known as the ‘Aarhus Notes, ’ appeared in 1981 [G.D. Plotkin, A structural approach to operational semantics, DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1981]. The development of the ideas dates back to the early 1970s, involving many people and building on previous work on programming languages and logic. The former included abstract syntax, the SECD machine, and the abstract interpreting machines of the Vienna school; the latter included the λ-calculus and formal systems. The initial development of structural operational semantics was for simple functional languages, more or less variations of the λ-calculus; after that the ideas were gradually extended to include languages with parallel features, such as Milner’s CCS. This experience set the ground for a more systematic exposition, the subject of an invited course of lectures at Aarhus University; some of these appeared in print as the 1981 Notes. We discuss the content of these lectures and some related considerations such as ‘small state’ versus ‘grand state, ’ structural versus compositional semantics, the influence of the Scott–Strachey approach to denotational semantics, the treatment of recursion and jumps, and static semantics. We next discuss relations with other work and some immediate further development. We conclude with an account of an old, previously unpublished, idea: an alternative, perhaps more readable, graphical presentation of systems of rules for operational semantics.

This paper describes (one person’s view of) how the Vienna Development Method grew out of the earlier work on the Vienna Definition Language. Both of these activities were undertaken at the IBM Laboratory Vienna during the 1960s and 70s. Dedication In gratitude to Peter Lucas who is a generous and challenging colleague who (twice) aided me in moving to a delightful city which changed my life. Please cite the original publication:

Abstract. Our goal is to help the developers of computer-based systems to make informed design decisions on the basis of insights gained from the rigorous analysis of abstract system models. The early work on model-oriented specification has inspired the development of numerous formalisms and tools supporting modelling and analysis. There are also many stories of successful industrial application, often driven by a few champions possessing deep a priori understanding of formalisms. There are fewer cases of successful take-up or adoption of the technology in the long term. We argue that successful industrial adoption of this technology requires that potential users strike a balance between the effort expended in producing and analysing a model and insight gained. In order to support this balancing act, tools need to offer a range of levels of effort and insight. Further, educators need to recognise that training in formal development techniques must support this trade-off process. 1

. The Irish School of Constructive Mathematics ((M_c)^clubsuit), which extends the VDM, exploits an algebraic notation based upon monoids and their morphisms. [...] In this paper we exhibit an accessible bridge from classical formal methods to topos-theoretic formal methods in seeking a unifying theory.

This paper reviews some of the research on reasonning about --and limiting-- interference. It can be argued that there is as yet no entirely satisfactory compositional method and another purpose of the paper is to expose the author's prejudices as to likely attributes of a useful method