An Adaptive Framework for the Design of Software Specification Languages

  • João J. Neto
  • Paulo S. Muniz Silva


Software has been specified as domain theories. A useful strategy for building specifications is the incremental extension of an initial theory, in which increments add new terms and notions not considered in previous extensions. Given an increment, the corresponding theory is stated in a corresponding specification language. The next increment — or extension of the theory — typically requires a related language extension, which has been specified in a variety of ways, e.g. meta-computations, rewriting systems, etc. Adaptive devices naturally support such scheme, whose instances should reflect the impact of extension variations on the specification language. This paper describes an adaptive framework for the design of a class of software specification languages supporting the incremental process of elaborating software specifications.


Specification Language Operational Semantic Abstraction Layer Language Extension Linguistic System 
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]
    Clarke, E.M., Wing, J.M. (1996) Formal methods: state of the art and future directions. ACM Computing Surveys 28(4): 626–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Neto, J.J. (2001) Adaptive rule-driven devices — general formulation and case study. LNCS v.2494, Springer-Verlag, pp. 234–250.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Turski, W.M., Maibaum, T.S.E. (1987) The specification of computer programs. Addison-Wesley, London, UK.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Smith, D.R. (1999) Designware: software development by refinement. In Proc. 8th Internat. Conf. on Category Theory and Computer Science (CTCS ’98), Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Maibaum, T.S.E. (2003) On what exactly goes on when software is developed step-by-step, II: the sequel. Information Processing Letters 88: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Harrison, W.L. and Kamin, S.N. (1998) Modular compilers based on monad transformers. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Languages, pp. 122–131.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Meyer, B. (1997) Object-oriented software construction, 2nd. Ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Wirth, N. (1977) What can we do with the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions? CACM 20(11): 822–823.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Neto, J.J., Pariente, C.B., Leonardi, F. (1999) Compiler Construction — a Pedagogical Approach. V Int. Congress on Informatics Engineering — Buenos Aires.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • João J. Neto
    • 1
  • Paulo S. Muniz Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Digital Systems EngineeringPolytechnic School of the Sao Paulo UniversityBrazil

Personalised recommendations