Thinking Tools for the Future of Computing Science
This paper argues that “formal methods” can (continue to) provide the thinking tools for the future of computing science. Every significant engineering or scientific discipline has advanced only with systematic and formally based notations. To see just how ubiquitous the need for notation is, one can look beyond the sciences and observe the importance of written notation in the development of music. Map making is another area where the importance of notation and the understanding of the need for (levels of) abstraction is recognised. Formal methods provide notations to navigate the future of computing science.
KeywordsModel Check Formal Method Operational Semantic Computing Science Grand Challenge
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [BBD+00]J. Biccaregui, Matthew Bishop, Theo Dimitakos, Kevin Lano, Brian Matthews, and Brian Ritchie. Supporting co-use of VDM and B by translation. In J. S. Fitzgerald, editor, VDM in 2000, 2000.Google Scholar
- [CJ91]J. H. Cheng and C. B. Jones. On the usability of logics which handle partial functions. In C. Morgan and J. C. P. Woodcock, editors, 3rd Refinement Workshop, pages 51–69. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- [CJ00]Pierre Collette and Cliff B. Jones. Enhancing the tractability of rely/guarantee specifications in the development of interfering operations. In Gordon Plotkin, Colin Stirling, and Mads Tofte, editors, Proof, Language and Interaction, chapter 10, pages 275–305. MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
- [Col94]Pierre Collette. Design of Compositional Proof Systems Based on Assumption-Commitment Specifications-Application to UNITY. PhD thesis, Louvain-la-Neuve, June 1994.Google Scholar
- [Dij76]E. W. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, 1976.Google Scholar
- [Din00]Jürgen Dingel. Systematic Parallel Programming. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000. CMU-CS-99-172.Google Scholar
- [dRE99]W. P. de Roever and K. Engelhardt. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and Their Comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- [DS90]Edsger W Dijkstra and Carel S Scholten. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer-Verlag, 1990. ISBN 0-387-96957-8, 3-540-96957-8.Google Scholar
- [Flo67]R.W. Floyd. Assigning meanings to programs. In Proc. Symp. in Applied Mathematics, Vol.19: Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 19–32. American Mathematical Society, 1967.Google Scholar
- [GJ96]J. R. Gurd and C. B. Jones. The global-yet-personal information system. In Ian Wand and Robin Milner, editors, Computing Tomorrow, pages 127–157. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- [GNRR93]R. L. Grossman, A. Nerode, A. P. Ravn, and H. Rischel, editors. Hybrid Systems VIII, volume 736 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
- [HJ89]C. A. R. Hoare and C. B. Jones. Essays in Computing Science. Prentice Hall International, 1989.Google Scholar
- [Hoa85]C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
- [Jac83]Michael Jackson. System Design. Prentice-Hall International, 1983.Google Scholar
- [Jac00]Michael Jackson. Problem Frames: Structring and Analysing Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley, 2000.Google Scholar
- [Jon81]C. B. Jones. Development Methods for Computer Programs including a Notion of Interference. PhD thesis, Oxford University, June 1981. Printed as: Programming Research Group, Technical Monograph 25.Google Scholar
- [Jon92]C. B. Jones. The search for tractable ways of reasoning about programs. Technical Report UMCS-92-4-4, Manchester University, 1992.Google Scholar
- [Jon94]C. B. Jones. Process algebra arguments about an object-based design notation. In A. W. Roscoe, editor, A Classical Mind, chapter 14, pages 231–246. Prentice-Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
- [Jon96b]C. B. Jones. A rigorous approach to formal methods. IEEE, Computer, 29(4):20–21, 1996.Google Scholar
- [Mid93]Cornelius A. Middelburg. Logic and Specification: Extending VDM-SL for advanced formal specification. Chapman and Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
- [Mil89]R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
- [Nor88]Donald A Norman. The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, 1988.Google Scholar
- [Owi75]S. Owicki. Axiomatic Proof Techniques for Parallel Programs. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1975. 75–251.Google Scholar
- [Plo81]G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical report, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
- [Rea90]James Reason. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Rus99]John Rushby. Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprises. In Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Human Error, pages 1–18. HESSD’99, 1999.Google Scholar
- [Sat75]Edwin H. Satterthwaite. Source Language Debugging Tools. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1975.Google Scholar
- [SG96]Mary Shaw and David Garlan. Sofware Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
- [Sit74]R.L. Sites. Some thoughts on proving clean termination of programs. Technical Report STAN-CS-74-417, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, May 1974.Google Scholar
- [Ste66]T. B. Steel. Formal Language Description Languages for Computer Programming. North-Holland, 1966.Google Scholar
- [Stø90]K. Stølen. Development of Parallel Programs on Shared Data-Structures. PhD thesis, Manchester University, 1990. available as UMCS-91-1-1.Google Scholar
- [SW89]I. C. Smith and D. N. Wall. Programmamable electronic systems for reactor safety. Atom, (395), 1989.Google Scholar
- [WWW00a]WWW.http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/prosper/, 2000.
- [WWW00b]WWW.http://www.dirc.org.uk, 2000.
- [WWW00c]WWW.http://www.ifad.dk/products/vdmtools.htm, 2000.
- [Xu92]Qiwen Xu. A Theory of State-based Parallel Programming. PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1992.Google Scholar