Extensions of initial models and their second-order proof systems
Besides explicit axioms, an algebraic specification language contains model-theoretic constraints such as initiality. For proving properties of specifications and refining them to programs, an axiomatization of these constraints is needed; unfortunately, no effective, sound and complete proof system can be constructed for initial models, and a fortiori for their extensions.
In this paper, we construct non-effective second-order axiomatizations for the initiality constraint, and its recently proposed extensions (minimal, quasi-free and surjective models) designed to deal with disjunction and existential quantification.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.M. Bidoit and G. Bernot. Proving correctness of algebraically specified software: Modularity and observability issues. In M. Nivat, C. Rattray, T. Rus, and G. Scollo, editors, AMAST'91, pages 139–161. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
- 2.M. Broy and al. The requirement and design specification language spectrum: an introduction. Technical Report TUM-I9140, Technische Universität München, 1991.Google Scholar
- 3.R. Burstall and J. Goguen. Semantics of CLEAR, a Specification Language. In D. Bjorner, editor, Abstract software specifications, Proc. 1979 Copenhagen Winter School, volume 86, pages 292–332. Springer, 1980.Google Scholar
- 4.CIP Language Group. The Munich Project CIP — Vol. I: The Language, volume 183 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1985.Google Scholar
- 5.N. Denyer. Pure second-order logic. Notre-Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33(2):220, 1992.Google Scholar
- 6.H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of algebraic specification: Volume 1. Equations and initial semantics. Springer Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
- 7.H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 2: Module Specifications and Constraints, volume 21 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
- 8.A. Schmidt, Die Zulässigkeit der Behandlung mehrsortiger Theorien mittels der üblichen einsortigen Prädikatenlogik, Math. Ann. 123, pages 187–200, 1951.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Goguen and R. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. J. ACM, 39(1):95–146, Jan. 1992.Google Scholar
- 10.S. Kaplan. Positive/negative conditional rewriting. In Conditional Term Rewriting, volume 308 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
- 11.D. MacQueen and D. Sannella. Completeness of proof systems for equational specifications. IEEE TSE, SE-11(5), May 1985.Google Scholar
- 12.P. Nivela and F. Orejas. Initial behaviour semantics for algebraic specifications. In Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, number 332 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 184–207. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
- 13.F. Nourani. On induction for programming logics: syntax, semantics, and inductive closure. EATCS Bulletin, 13:51–64, 1981.Google Scholar
- 14.P. Rathmann and M. Winslett. Circumscribing equality. In Proc. of the 8th Nat. Conf. on Art. Int. (AAAI-89), pages 468–473, 1989.Google Scholar
- 15.P.-Y. Schobbens. Surjective Circumscription Proc. Dutch/German Workshop on Non-Monotonic Logics, W. Nejdl ed., Aachen, Dec. 1993.Google Scholar
- 16.P.-Y. Schobbens. Second-Order Proof Systems for Algebraic Specification Languages Proc. 9th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types, F. Orejas ed., to appear.Google Scholar
- 17.P.-Y. Schobbens. Exceptions for software specification: on the meaning of ”but”. Technical report, Univ. Cath. de Louvain, 1989.Google Scholar
- 18.M. Wirsing. Structured algebraic specifications: A kernel language. Theoretical Computer Science, 42:123–249, 1986.Google Scholar