Specification of a control system using dynamic logic and process algebra
  • Roel Wieringa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 891)


LCM 3.0 is a specification language based on dynamic logic and process algebra, and can be used to specify systems of dynamic objects that communicate synchronously. LCM 3.0 was developed for the specification of object-oriented information systems, but contains sufficient facilities for the specification of control to apply it to the specification of control-intensive systems as well. In this paper, the results of such an application are reported. The paper concludes with a discussion of the need for theorem-proving support and of the extensions that would be needed to be able to specify real-time properties.


Control Object Object Class Process Algebra Dynamic Logic Kripke Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J.C.M. Baeten and W.P. Weijland. Process Algebra. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 18. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Berry and G. Gonthier. The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: design, semantics, implementation. Science of Computer Programming, 19:87–152, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Berthomieu and M. Diaz. Modeling and verification of time dependent systems using time Petri nets. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-17:259–273, March 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Bry, H. Decker, and R. Manthey. A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT), pages 488–505, Venice, 1988. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Budde. ESTEREL Applied to the case study production cell. In Case Study “Production Cell”, FZI-Publication 1/94, pages 51–75. Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Coad and E. Yourdon. Object-Oriented Analysis. Yourdon Press/Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1. Equations and Initial Semantics. Springer, 1985. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 6.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R.B. Feenstra and R.J. Wieringa. Validating database constraints and updates using automated reasoning techniques. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R.B. Feenstra and R.J. Wieringa. LCM 3.0: a language for describing conceptual models. Technical Report IR-344, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, December 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J.A. Goguen, J.W. Thatcher, and E.G. Wagner. An initial algebra approach to the specification, correctness, and implementation of abstract data types. In R.T. Yeh, editor, Current Trends in Programming Methodology, pages 80–149. Prentice-Hall, 1978. Volume IV: Data Structuring.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Gomaa. Software Design Methods for Concurrent and Real-Time Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Jackson. System Development. Prentice-Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    P.A. Spruit and R.J. Wieringa. Some finite-graph models for process algebra. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.F. Groote, editors, 2nd International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR'91), pages 495–509, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P.T. Ward and S.J. Mellor. Structured Development for Real-Time Systems. Prentice-Hall/Yourdon Press, 1985. Three volumes.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R.J. Wieringa. A formalization of objects using equational dynamic logic. In C. Delobel, M. Kifer, and Y. Masunaga, editors, 2nd International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD'91), pages 431–452. Springer, 1991. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 566.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R.J. Wieringa. A method for building and evaluating formal specifications of object-oriented conceptual models of database systems (MCM). Technical Report IR-340, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, December 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.J. Wieringa and R.B. Feenstra. The university library document circulation system specified in LCM 3.0. Technical Report IR-343, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, December 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R.J. Wieringa and W. de Jonge. Object identifiers, keys, and surrogates. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Object Systems, To be published.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R.J. Wieringa, W. de Jonge, and P.A. Spruit. Roles and dynamic subclasses: a modal logic approach. In M. Tokoro and R. Pareschi, editors, Object-Oriented Programming, 8th European Conference (ECOOP'94), pages 32–59. Springer, 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 821. Extended version to be published in Theory and Practice of Object Systems (TAPOS).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 7:289–346, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. DEIRDRE (deontic integrity rules, deadlines and real time in databases). Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit., 1993.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    E. Yourdon. Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roel Wieringa
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations