Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Domain science and engineering from computer science to the sciences of informatics. Part II: science

  • Published:
Cybernetics and Systems Analysis Aims and scope

Abstract

We discuss means for describing domains. We do so on the background of the example of part I of the present (Part II) paper and in its discussion. The discussion amounts to a proposal for a base description ontology. The discussion borders between computer science and an emerging Philosophy of Informatics. As such it is very tentative. The present discussion might inspire better minds to put this border area on a stronger footing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J.-R. Abrial, The B Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings and Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996 and 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. P. Bernus and L. Nemes (eds.), “Modeling and methodologies for enterprise integration,” in: Proc. IFIP TC5 Working Conference on Models and Methodologies for Enterprise Integration, Chapman & Hall, Queensland, Australia, November 1995, London (1996).

  3. D. Bjørner, “Domain science and engineering. From computer science to the sciences of informatics. Part I: Engineering,” Cybern. Syst. Analysis, 46, No. 4, 100–116 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. D. Bjørner, Software Engineering, Vol. 3: Domains, Requirements and Software Design, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, the EATCS Series, Springer (2006).

  5. D. Bjørner, Domain Theory: Practice and Theories, Discussion of Possible Research Topics, in: J.C.P. Woodcock et al. (eds.), ICTAC’2007, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4701, September 2007, Springer, Heidelberg (2007), pp. 1–17. Springer. Final Version.

  6. D. Bjørner, An Emerging Domain Science –A Role for Stanislaw Lesniewski’s Mereology and Bertrand Russell’s Philosophy of Logical Atomism, Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation (2009). Final Version.

  7. D. Bjørner, On Mereologies in Computing Science, in: B. Roscoe (ed.), Festschrift for Tony Hoare, History of Computing Springer, London (2009). Springer. Final Version.

  8. D. Bjorner, Domain Engineering, in: P. Boca a nd J. Bowen (eds.), BCS FACS Seminars, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, the BCS FAC Series, London, UK (2010), pp. 1–42. Springer. Final Version.

  9. D. Bjørner, Domain Engineering: Technology Management, Research and Engineering, JAIST Research Monograph #4, JAIST Press, March (2009).

  10. D. Bjørner and A. Eir, Compositionality: Ontology and Mereology of Domains. Some Clarifying Observations in the Context of Software Engineering in: M. Steffen, D. Dams, and U. Hannemann (eds.), in: Festschrift for Prof. Willem Paul de Roever, Concurrency, Compositionality, and Correctness, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5930, Heidelberg, July (2010), pp. 22–59. Springer. Final Version.

  11. W. D. Blizard, “A formal theory of objects, space and time,” J. of Symbolic Logic, 55(1), March, 74–89 (1990).

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. R. Bruni and J. Meseguer, “Generalized rewrite theories,” in: J. C. M. Baeten, J. K. Lenstra, J. Parrow, and G. J. Woeginger (ed.), Automata, Languages and Programming, Proc. of the 30th International Colloquium, ICALP 2003, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, June 30–July 4, 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2719, Springer-Verlag (2003), pp. 252–266.

  13. W. Clancey, “The knowledge–level reinterpreted: Modeling socio–technical systems,” Intern. J. of Intelligent Systems, 8, 33–49 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. M. Clavel, F. Dur’an, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, N. Martí-Oliet, J. Meseguer, and C. Talcott, “The Maude 2.0 system,” in: R. Nieuwenhuis (ed.), Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA 2003), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2706, Springer-Verlag, June (2003), pp. 76–87.

  15. N. Cocchiarella, “Formal ontology,” in: H. Burkhardt and B. Smith (eds.), Handbook in Metaphysics and Ontology, Philosophia Verlag, Munich (1991), pp. 640–647.

    Google Scholar 

  16. CoFI (The Common Framework Initiative), Casl Reference Manual, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (IFIP Series), Vol. 2960, Springer–Verlag (2004)

  17. D. J. Farmer, Being in Time: The Nature of Time in Light of McTaggart’s Paradox, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. Fitzgerald and P. G. Larsen, Modelling Systems — Practical Tools and Techniques in Software Development, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009).

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. K. Futatsugi, A. Nakagawa, and T. Tamai (eds.), “CAFE: An industrial–strength algebraic formal method,” in: Proc. April 1998 Symposium, Numazu, Japan (2000).

  20. B. H. P. Gennaro Chierchia and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Vol. I: Foundational Issues, Vol. II: Semantic Issues, Kluwer Academic (1988).

  21. C. W. George, A. E. Haxthausen, S. Hughes, R. Milne, S. Prehn, and J. S. Pedersen, The RAISE Development Method, The BCS Practitioner Series, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hampstead (1995).

  22. T. R. Gruber and G. R. Olsen, “An ontology for engineering mathematics,” in: J. Doyle, P. Torasso, and E. Sandewall (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 4th Intern. Conf. Gustav Stresemann Institut, Morgan Kaufmann, Bonn (1994), http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/papers/engmath.html.

  23. M. Gruninger and M. Fox, “The logic of enterprise modeling,” in: Modelling and Methodologies for Enterprise Integration, November (1995), pp. 141–157.

  24. N. Guarino, “Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation,” Int. J. of Human–Computer Studies, 43, 625–640 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. N. Guarino, “Some organising principles for a unifed top-level ontology,” Int. Rep., Italian National Research Council (CNR), LADSEB–CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I–35127 Padova, Italy (1997).

  26. B. Hansen and N. Nikitchenko, “Abstract transport systems: An initial study,” Research Report IT-Dok: 1998–006, Technical University of Denmark (1998).

  27. B. Hansen and N. Nikitchenko, “Abstract transport systems: compositions and description languages,” in: Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Programming UkrProg98, Ukraine, Kiev (1998).

  28. D. Harel, “Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems,” Science of Computer Programming, 8(3), 231–274 (1987).

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. D. Harel and R. Marelly, Come, Let’s Play — Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine, Springer-Verlag (2003).

  30. C. Hoare, Communicating Sequential Processes, C. A. R. Hoare Series in Computer Science, Prentice-Hall International (1985), http://www.usingcsp.com/cspbook.pdf (2004).

  31. C. Hoare and D. Allison, “Incomputability,” ACM Comput. Surv., 4(3), 169–178 (1972).

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. ITU-T, CCITT Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Chart (MSC) (1992, 1996, 1999).

  33. D. Jackson, Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis, ISBN 0-262-10114-9, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  34. L. Lamport, Specifying Systems, Addison–Wesley, Boston, Mass. (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  35. J. McCarthy, “Towards a mathematical science of computation,” in: C. Popplewell (ed.), Proc. IFIP World Congress (1962), pp. 21–28.

  36. J. M. E. McTaggart, “The unreality of time,” Mind, 18(68), 457–84, October (1908). New Series.

  37. D. H. Mellor and A. Oliver, Properties, Oxford Readings in Philosophy, Oxford Univ Press, May (1997).

  38. J. Meseguer, Software Specification and Verification in Rewriting Logic, NATO Advanced Study Institute (2003).

  39. N. Nikitchenko, “Towards foundations of the general theory of transport domains,” Research Report 88, UNU/IIST (1996).

  40. N. Nikitchenko, “Construction of abstract transport models oriented on composition programming systems,” Problemy Programmir., No. 2 (1997).

  41. R. L. Poidevin and M. MacBeath (eds.), The Philosophy of Time, Oxford Univ. Press (1993).

  42. A. Prior, Changes in Events and Changes in Things, Oxford Univ. Press (1993).

  43. A. N. Prior, Logic and the Basis of Ethics, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  44. A. N. Prior, Time and Modality, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1957).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. A. N. Prior, Past, Present and Future, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1967).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. A. N. Prior, Papers on Time and Tense, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  47. W. Reisig, Petrinetze: Modellierungstechnik, Analysemethoden, Fallstudien, Institut für Informatik, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, October (2009), http://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/top/pnene buch/pnene buch.pdf.

  48. G. Rochelle, Behind Time: The Incoherence of Time and McTaggart’s Atemporal Replacement, Avebury Series in Philosophy, Ashgate, Brookfield (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  49. B. Russell, “The philosophy of logical atomism,” The Monist: An Intern. Quart. J. of General Philosophical Inquiry, 28, 495–527 (1918); 29, 32–63, 190–222, 345–380 (1919).

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. F. Sowa, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations, Pws Pub Co. (1999).

  51. S. Staab and R. Stuber (eds.), Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer, Heidelberg (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  52. J. van Benthem, “The logic of time,” in: Jaakko Hintika (ed.), Vol. 156 of Synthese Library: Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, 2nd ed., Kluwer Acad. Publ. (1983), (1991).

  53. J. C. P. Woodcock and J. Davies, Using Z: Specification, Proof and Refinement, Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science (1996).

  54. C. C. Zhou and M. R. Hansen, Duration Calculus: A Formal Approach to Real-Time Systems, Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2004).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    D. Bjørner

Authors
  1. D. Bjørner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Bjørner.

Additional information

Translated from Kibernetika i Sistemnyi Analiz, No. 2, pp. 100–120, March–April 2011.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bjørner, D. Domain science and engineering from computer science to the sciences of informatics. Part II: science. Cybern Syst Anal 47, 260–276 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10559-011-9308-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10559-011-9308-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation