On the Integration of Observability and Reachability Concepts

  • Michel Bidoit
  • Rolf Hennicker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2303)


This paper focuses on the integration of reachability and observability concepts within an algebraic, institution-based framework.We develop the essential notions that are needed to construct an institution which takes into account both the generation- and observation-oriented aspects ofsof tware systems. Thereby the underlying paradigm is that the semantics ofa specification should be as loose as possible to capture all its correct realizations. We also consider the so-called “idealized models” ofa specification which are useful to study the behavioral properties a user can observe when he/she is experimenting with the system. Finally, we present sound and complete proofsystems that allow us to derive behavioral properties from the axioms of a given specification.


Proof System Proof Rule Correct Realization Observational Equality Signature Morphism 
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]
    E. Astesiano, M. Bidoit, H. Kirchner, B. Krieg-Brückner, P.D. Mosses, D. Sannella, and A. Tarlecki. Casl: The Common Algebraic Specification Language. Theoretical Computer Science, 2002. To appear.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    E. Astesiano, H.-J. Kreowski, and B. Krieg-Brückner, editors. Algebraic Foundations of Systems Specification. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Bidoit and R. Hennicker. Observer complete definitions are behaviourally coherent. In Proc. OBJ/CafeOBJ/Maude Workshop at FM’99, pages 83–94. THETA, 1999.
  4. [4]
    M. Bidoit and R. Hennicker. On the integration ofobserv ability and reachability concepts. Research Report LSV-02-2, 2002. Long version ofthis paper.
  5. [5]
    M. Bidoit, R. Hennicker, and A. Kurz. On the duality between observability and reachability. In Proc. FOSSACS’01, LNCS 2030, pages 72–87. Springer, 2001. Long version: Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Bidoit, R. Hennicker, and M. Wirsing. Behavioural and abstractor specifications. Science of Computer Programming, 25:149–186, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    T. Borzyszkowski. Completeness ofa logical system for structured specifications. In Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques, LNCS 1376, pages 107–121. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Diaconescu and K. Futatsugi. CafeOBJ Report: The Language, Proof Techniques, and Methodologies for Object-Oriented Algebraic Specification. AMAST Series in Computing 6. World Scientific, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Goguen and R. Burstall. Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM, 39 (1):95–146, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Goguen and G. Roşu. Hiding more ofhidden algebra. In Proc. FM’99, LNCS 1709, pages 1704–1719. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Hennicker and M. Bidoit. Observational logic. In Proc. AMAST’98, LNCS 1548, pages 263–277. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Hofmann and D. Sannella. On behavioural abstraction and behavioural satisfaction in higher-order logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 167:3–45, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. J. Keisler. Model Theory for Infinitary Logic. North-Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Loeckx, H.-D. Ehrich, and M. Wolf. Specification of Abstract Data Types. Wiley and Teubner, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M.P. Nivela and F. Orejas. Initial behaviour semantics for algebraic specifications. In Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, LNCS 332, pages 184–207. Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Padawitz. Swinging data types: syntax, semantics, and theory. In Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, LNCS 1130, pages 409–435. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Horst Reichel. Initial computability, algebraic specifications, and partial algebras. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    D.T. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. On observational equivalence and algebraic specification. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 34:150–178, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    D.T. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Specifications in an arbitrary institution. Information and Computation, 76:165–210, 1988.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Wirsing and M. Broy. A modular framework for specification and information. In Proc. TAPSOFT’89, LNCS 351, pages 42–73. Springer, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Bidoit
    • 1
  • Rolf Hennicker
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire Spécification et Vérification (LSV)CNRS & ENS de CachanFrance
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations