Advertisement

Understanding Specification Languages through Their Model Theory

  • Ethan K. Jackson
  • Wolfram Schulte
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7539)

Abstract

This paper studies the design of specification languages through their model theory. We show how language constructs and specification idioms are deeply rooted in the underlying model theory. We also show that some problems are fundamentally difficult to specify due to the underlying foundation of the language. The languages we study are Alloy, Maude, and FORMULA. FORMULA attempts to handle a large class of specifications problems while utilizing constraint solvers for formal analysis.

Keywords

Model Theory Equational Theory Relational Algebra Boolean Expression Unary 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: A New Technology for Software Modelling. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, p. 20. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Quesada, J.F.: Maude: Specification and Programming in Rewriting Logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 285(2), 187–243 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jackson, E.K., Kang, E., Dahlweid, M., Seifert, D., Santen, T.: Components, platforms and possibilities: towards generic automation for MDA. In: EMSOFT, pp. 39–48 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lifschitz, V.: Datalog Programs and Their Stable Models. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 78–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvaro, P., Marczak, W.R., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J.M., Maier, D., Sears, R.: Dedalus: Datalog in Time and Space. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 262–281. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker, M.Y., Fournet, C., Gordon, A.D.: Secpal: Design and semantics of a decentralized authorization language. Journal of Computer Security 18(4), 619–665 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: A Relational Model Finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ethan K. Jackson
    • 1
  • Wolfram Schulte
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations