Combining and representing logical systems

  • Till Mossakowski
  • Andrzej Tarlecki
  • Wieslaw Pawłowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1290)

Abstract

The paper addresses important problems of building complex logical systems and their representations in universal logics in a systematic way. Following Goguen and Burstall, we adopt the model-theoretic view of logic as captured in the notion of institution and of parchment (a certain algebraic way of presenting institutions).

We propose a modified notion of parchment together with a notion of parchment morphism and representation, respectively. We lift formal properties of the categories of institutions and their representations to this level: the category of parchments is complete, and parchment representations may be put together using categorical limits as well. However, parchments provide a more adequate framework for systematic combination of logical systems than institutions. We indicate how the necessary invention for proper combination of various logical features may be introduced either on an ad hoc basis (when putting parchments together using limits in the category of parchments) or via representations in a universal logic (when parchment combination is driven by their representations).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    E. Astesiano, M. Cerioli. Relationships between logical frameworks. In M. Bidoit, C. Choppy, eds., Proc. 8th ADT workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 655, 126–143. Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Jon Barwise. Axioms for abstract model theory. Annals of Mathematical Logic 7, 221–265,1974.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Burmeister. A model theoretic approach to partial algebras. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1986.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Cerioli. Relationships between Logical Formalisms. PhD thesis, TD-4/93, Università di Pisa-Genova-Udine, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Ehrig, P. Pepper, F. Orejas. On recent trends in algebraic specification. In Proc. ICALP'89, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 372, 263–288. Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. A. Goguen. A categorical manifesto. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1, 49–67, 1991.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. A. Goguen, R. M. Burstall. A study in the foundations of programming methodology: Specifications, institutions, charters and parchments. In D. Pitt et al., ed., Category Theory and Computer Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 240, 313–333. Springer Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. A. Goguen, R. M. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 39, 95–146, 1992. Predecessor in: LNCS 164, 221–256, 1984.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S.C. Kleene. Introduction to Metamathematics. North Holland, 1952.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Mac Lane. Categories for the working mathematician. Springer, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    CoFI Task Group on Language Design. CASL-The CoFI Algebraic Specification Language-Summary. CoFI Document: CASL/Summary. WWW7, FTP8, May 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Meseguer. General logics. In Logic Colloquium 87, 275–329. North Holland, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    T. Mossakowski. Using limits of parchments to systematically construct institutions of partial algebras. In M. Haveraaen, O. Owe, O.-J. Dahl, eds., Recent Trends in Data Type Specifications. 11th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1130, 379–393. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Peter D. Mosses. CoFI: The Common Framework Initiative for Algebraic Specification and Development. In M. Bidoit, M. Dauchet, eds., TAPSOFT 97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1214, 115–137. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    P. Padawitz. Computing in Horn Clause Theories. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1988.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    W. Pawłowski. Context institutions. In M. Haveraaen, O. Owe, O.-J. Dahl, eds., Recent Trends in Data Type Specifications. 11th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1130, 436–457. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    G. Priest. Inconsistent arithmetics and non-Euclidean geometries. Invited talk at Logic Colloquium, San Sebasitan, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    P. Stefaneas. The first order parchment. Report PRG-TR-16-92, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Tarlecki. Bits and pieces of the theory of institutions. In D. Pitt, S. Abramsky, A. Poigné, D. Rydeheard, eds., Proc. Intl. Workshop on Category Theory and Computer Programming, Guildford 1985, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 240, 334–363. Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Tarlecki. Moving between logical systems. In M. Haveraaen, O. Owe, O.-J. Dahl, eds., Recent Trends in Data Type Specifications. 11th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1130, 478–502. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Till Mossakowski
    • 1
  • Andrzej Tarlecki
    • 2
  • Wieslaw Pawłowski
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Informatics, Warsaw University and Institute of Computer SciencePolish Academy of SciencesWarsaw
  3. 3.Institute of Computer SciencePolish Academy of SciencesGdańsk

Personalised recommendations