Consistency and refinement for partial specification in Z

  • Eerke Boiten
  • John Derrick
  • Howard Bowman
  • Maarten Steen
Session 4b: Z
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1051)


This paper discusses theoretical background for the use of Z as a language for partial specification, in particular techniques for checking consistency between viewpoint specifications. The main technique used is unification, i.e. finding a (candidate) least common refinement. The corresponding notion of consistency between specifications turns out to be different from the known notions of consistency for single Z specifications. A key role is played by correspondence relations between the data types used in the various viewpoints.


State Consistency Unification Method State Schema Unification Rule Identity Relation 
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.


  1. 1.
    M. Ainsworth, A. H. Cruickshank, L. J. Groves, and P. J. L. Wallis. Viewpoint specification and Z. Information and Software Technology, 36(1):43–51, February 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. D. Arthan. On free type definitions in Z. In Nicholls [12], pages 40–58.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Boiten, J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M.Steen. Unification and multiple views of data in Z. In J.C. van Vliet, editor, Computing Science in the Netherlands, pages 73–85, November 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma. Introduction to the ISO Specification Language LOTOS. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14(1):25–29, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. Some results on cross viewpoint consistency checking. In Raymond and Armstrong [13], pages 399–412.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Maintaining cross viewpoint consistency using Z. In Raymond and Armstrong [13], pages 413–424.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Viewpoints and Objects. In J. P. Bowen and M. G. Hinchey, editors, Ninth Annual Z User Workshop, LNCS 967, pages 449–468, Limerick, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.C.W. Finkelstein, D. Gabbay, A. Hunter, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh. Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(8):569–578, August 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ITU Recommendation X.901-904 — ISO/IEC 10746 1–4. Open Distributed Processing — Reference Model — Parts 1–4, July 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Jackson. Structuring Z specifications with views. Technical Report CMU-CS-94-126, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Jackson and M. Jackson. Problem decomposition for reuse. Software Engineering Journal, 1995. To appear.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. E. Nicholls, editor. Z User Workshop, York 1991, Workshops in Computing. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Raymond and L. Armstrong, editors. IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing. Chapman and Hall, Brisbane, Australia, February 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Smith. On recursive free types in Z. In Nicholls [12], pages 3–39.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z notation: A reference manual. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Zave and M. Jackson. Conjunction as composition. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2(4):379–411, October 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eerke Boiten
    • 1
  • John Derrick
    • 1
  • Howard Bowman
    • 1
  • Maarten Steen
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing LaboratoryUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations