A Global Semantics for Views

  • Christine Choppy
  • Pascal Poizat
  • Jean-Claude Royer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1816)


We focus on the specification of mixed systems that contain static and dynamic aspects. Our approach aims at keeping advantage of the languages dedicated to both aspects (algebraic specifications for data types, and state transition diagrams for dynamic behaviour) while providing an underlying unifying framework accompanied by an appropriate semantic model. This underlying framework is based on our notion of views. In [4] we addressed the composition of any number of views in a composition. Here we address the strong links that exist between all aspects of a single component, and that altogether build its global semantics. After presenting the (state and transition) formulas and their semantics, we show how to glue the different aspects together, and we present the retrieval of the global view for components. We provide here a new set of rules for the STS part of our views, taking into account the composition of all aspects. We then give the formal (global) semantics for such global views. We illustrate our view model on a password management example.


mixed specifications view formalism global semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    André Arnold. Systèmes de transitions finis et sémantique des processus communicants. Etudes et recherches en informatique. Masson, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tommaso Bolognesi and Ed Brinksma. Introduction to the ISO Specification Language LOTOS. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14(1):25–29, January 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christine Choppy, Pascal Poizat, and Jean-Claude Royer. A Global Semantics for Views. Research Report 189, IRIN, 1999. /papers/ in Poizat’s web page.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christine Choppy, Pascal Poizat, and Jean-Claude Royer. Control and Datatypes using the View Formalism. Research Report 188, IRIN, 1999. /papers/ in Poizat’s web page.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jan Ellsberger, Dieter Hogrefe, and Amardeo Sarma. SDL: Formal Object-oriented Language for Communicating Systems. Prentice-Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Hennessy and H. Lin. Symbolic Bisimulations. Theoretical Computer Science, 138(2):353–389, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC. LOTOS: A Formal Description Technique based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. ISO/IEC 8807, International Organization for Standardization, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leslie Lamport. The Temporal Logic of Actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):872–923, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Radu Mateescu. Vérification des propriétés temporelles des programmes parallèles. PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    José Meseguer. Rewriting logic as a semantic framework for concurrency: a progress report. In CONCUR’96: Concurrency Theory, volume 1119 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 331–372, Pisa, Italy, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaël Nedelec, Marielle Papillon, Christelle Piedsnoirs, and Gwen Salaün. CLAP: a Class Library for Automata in Python. Master’s thesis, 1999. CLAP.html in Poizat’s web page.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pascal Poizat, Christine Choppy, and Jean-Claude Royer. Concurrency and Data Types: A Specification Method. An Example with LOTOS. In J. Fiadeiro, editor, Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques, Selected Papers of the 13th International Workshop on Algebraic Development Techniques WADT’98, volume 1589 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 276–291, Lisbon, Portugal, 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pascal Poizat, Christine Choppy, and Jean-Claude Royer. From Informal Requirements to COOP: a Concurrent Automata Approach. In J.M. Wing, J. Woodcock, and J. Davies, editors, FM’99-Formal Methods, World Congress on Formal Methods in the Development of Computing Systems, volume 1709 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 939–962, Toulouse, France, 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gianna Reggio and Mauro Larosa. A graphic notation for formal specifications of dynamic systems. In John Fitzgerald, Cliff B. Jones, and Peter Lucas, editors, FME’97: Industrial Applications and Strengthened Foundations of Formal Methods (Proc. 4th Intl. Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, Graz, Austria, September 1997), volume 1313 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 40–61. Springer-Verlag, September 1997. ISBN 3-540-63533-5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carron Shankland, Muffy Thomas, and Ed Brinksma. Symbolic Bisimulation for Full LOTOS. In Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology AMAST’97, volume 1349 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 479–493. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graeme Smith. A Semantic Integration of Object-Z and CSP for the Specification of Concurrent Systems. In J. Fitzgerald, C.B. Jones, and P. Lucas, editors, Formal Methods Europe (FME’97), volume 1313 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 62–81. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rational Software. Unified Modeling Language, Version 1.1. Technical report, Rational Software Corp,, September 1997.
  18. 18.
    Martin Wirsing. Algebraic Specification, volume B of Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, chapter 13, pages 675–788. Elsevier, 1990. Jan Van Leeuwen, Editor.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Choppy
    • 1
  • Pascal Poizat
    • 2
  • Jean-Claude Royer
    • 2
  1. 1.LIPN, Institut GaliléeUniversité Paris XIIIVilletaneuseFrance
  2. 2.IRINUniversité de NantesNantes cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations