Advertisement

Deontic concepts in the algebraic specification of dynamic systems: The permission case

  • Eva Coscia
  • Gianna Reggio
Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1130)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Astesiano and G. Reggio. SMoLCS-Driven Concurrent Calculi. In H. Ehrig, R. Kowalski, G. Levi, and U. Montanari, editors, Proc. TAPSOFT'87, Vol. 1, number 249 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 169–201. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Astesiano and G. Reggio. Specifying Reactive Systems by Abstract Events. In Proc. of Seventh International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-7). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Astesiano and G. Reggio. A Case Study in Friendly Specifications of Concurrent Systems (Lamport & Broy's Specification Problem Presented at the Dagstuhl Seminar “Specification and Refinement of Reactive Systems — A Case Study”). Technical Report DISI-TR-94-21, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione — Università di Genova, Italy, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Astesiano and G. Reggio. Formally-Driven Friendly Specifications of Concurrent Systems: A Two-Rail Approach. Technical Report DISI-TR-94-20, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione — Università di Genova, Italy, 1994. Presented at ICSE'17-Workshop on Formal Methods, Seattle April 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Astesiano and G. Reggio. Algebraic Dynamic Specifications: An Outline. Technical Report DISI-TR-95-08, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione — Università di Genova, Italy, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Coscia. Utilizzo di Concetti Deontici nella Specifica Formale di Sistemi Dinamici. Master Thesis. In Italian, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Coscia and G. Reggio. Deontic Concepts in the Specification of Dynamic Systems: the Permission Case. Technical Report DISI-TR-95-14, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione — Università di Genova, Italy, 1995. Available by anonymous ftp at ftp.disi.unige.it, directory pub/reggio.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Costa and G. Reggio. Abstract Dynamic Data Types: a Temporal Logic Approach. In A. Tarlecki, editor, Proc. MFCS'91, number 520 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 103–112. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Costa and G. Reggio. Specification of Abstract Dynamic DataTypes: A Temporal Logic Approach. T.C.S., 1996. Avaible by anonymous ftp at ftp.disi.unige.it, directory /pub/reggio.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. D'Altan, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, and R.J. Wieringa. An Integrated Framework for Ought-to-Be and Ought-to-Do Constraints. Technical Report IR-342, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije University, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Temporal Reasoning over Deontic Specification. J. Logic Computation, 1(3):357–395, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Goguen and J. Meseguer. Models and Equality for Logic Programming. In Proc. TAPSOFT'87, Vol. 2, number 250 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–22. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.J.I. Jones and M. Sergot. On the Characterization of Law and Computer Systems: The Normative Systems Perspective. In J.-J.Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.J.H. Kent, T.S.E. Maibaum, and W.J. Quirk. Formally Specifying Temporal Constraints and Error Recovery. In Proc. of International Symposium on Requirements Engineering RE'93. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Khosla. System Specification: a Deontic Approach. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.-J. Ch. Meyer, F.P.M. Dignum, and R.J. Wieringa. The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic Revisited: A Computer Science Perspective. Technical Report UU-CS-1994-38, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.-J. Ch. Meyer, F.P.M. Dignum, and R.J. Wieringa. A Solution to the Free Choice Paradox by Contextually Permitted Actions. Studio Logica, 1995. To be published.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.-J.Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Reggio. Event Logic for Specifying Abstract Dynamic Data Types. In M. Bidoit and C. Choppy, editors, Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, number 655 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 292–309. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Reggio and E. Crivelli. Specification of a Hydroelectric Power Station: Revised Tool-Checked Version. Technical Report DISI-TR-94-17, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione — Università di Genova, Italy, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Reggio and V. Filippi. Specification of a High-Voltage Substation: Revised Tool-Checked Version. Technical Report DISI-TR-95-09, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione — Università di Genova, Italy, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Wirsing. Algebraic Specifications. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoret. Comput. Sci., volume B, pages 675–788. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Coscia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gianna Reggio
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'InformazioneUniversità di GenovaItaly
  2. 2.GenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations