Actor-oriented system specification with dynamic logic

  • J. -J. Ch. Meyer
  • R. J. Wieringa
CCPSD Colloquium On Combining Paradigms For Software Development
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 494)


In this paper, we extend dynamic logic with the concept of an actor in order to be able to specify who takes the initiative of an action, who makes a choice, or who controls a synchronization of actions. We give two examples of application of this idea. First, we show how to generalize an approach taken up by De Nicola and Hennessy, who eliminate τ from CCS in favor of internal and external choice. We show that this generalization allows a more accurate specification of system behavior than is possible without it. Second, deontic logic has been used by several researchers as a system specification language. In the course of this application, a number of paradoxes of classical deontic logic have been resolved, except the paradox of free choice permission. We show that actors can be used to resolve this paradox as well.

Subject area

Specification of systems combining different logics 

6. References

  1. 1.
    al-Hibri, A., Deontic Logic, University Press of America (1978).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergstra, J.A. and Klop, J.W., “Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication,” Information and Control 60, pp. 109–137 (1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergstra, J.A. and Klop, J.W., “Algebra of Communicating Processes with Abstraction,” Theoretical Computer Science 37, pp. 77–121 (1985).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergstra, J.A. and Klop, J.W., “Algebra of Communicating Processes,” pp. 89–138 in Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI Monographs 1), ed. J.W. de Bakker, M. Hazewinkel & J.K. Lenstra, North-Holland (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castañeda, H.-N., “The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic,” in New Studies in Deontic Logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, Reidel (1981).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum, F.P.M. and Meyer, J.-J.Ch., “Negations of Transactions and Their Use in the Specification of Dynamic and Deontic Integrity Constraints,” pp. 61–80 in Semantics for Concurrency, ed. M.Z. Kwiatkowska, M.W. Shields, and R.M. Thomas, Springer (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H. and Mahr, B., Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1. Equations and Initial Semantics, Springer (1985). EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiadeiro, J. and Maibaum, T., “Temporal Reasoning over Deontic Specifications,” Technical Report, Department of Computing, Imperial College (1989).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Føllesdal, D. and Hilpinen, R., “Deontic Logic: An Introduction,” pp. 1–35 in Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, ed. R. Hilpinen, Reidel (1981).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goguen, J.A., Jouannaud, J.-P., and Meseguer, J., “Operational Semantics for Order-Sorted Algebra,” pp. 221–231 in 12th International Coloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ed. W. Brauer, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 194 (1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goguen, J.A. and Meseguer, J., “An Order-Sorted Algebra Approach to the Constructors and Selectors Problem,” in Logic in Computer Science (1987).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goguen, J.A. and Meseguer, J., Order-Sorted Algebra I: Equational Deduction for Multiple Inheritance, Overloading, Exceptions and Partial Operations, Programming Research Group, Oxford, and SRI International, Menlo Park (June 19, 1989).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harel, D., “Dynamic Logic,” pp. 497–604 in Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, ed. D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, Reidel (1984).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilpinen, R., “Conditionals in Possible Worlds,” pp. 299–335 in Contemporary Philosophy, a New Survey, ed. G. Fløstad, Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall (1985).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoek, W. van der and Meyer, J.J.Ch., “Explicating Some Issues in Implicit Knowledge,” Technical Report IR-222, Department of Mathematics and Computer science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (September 1990).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hughes, G.E. and Cresswell, M.J., A Companion to Modal Logic, Methuen (1984).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalinowski, G., Einführung in die Normenlogik, Athenäum Press (1972).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamp, H., “Free Choice Permission,” Aristotelian Society Proceedings N.S. 74, pp. 57–74 (1973–1974).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khosla, S. and Maibaum, T.S.E., “The Prescription and Description of State Based Systems,” pp. 243–294 in Temporal Logic in Specification, ed. B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer, A. Pneuli, Springer (1987). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 398.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khosla, S., “System Specification: A Deontic Approach,” PhD Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London (1988).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyden, R. van der, “The Dynamic Logic of Permission,” pp. 72–78 in Proceedings, 5th IEEE Conference on Logic in Computer Science, Philadelphia (1990).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch., “Free Choice Permissions and Ross's Paradox: Internal vs External Nondeterminism,” Report IR-130, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (august 1987).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch., “A Different Approach to Deontic Logic: Deontic Logic Viewed as a Variant of Dynamic Logic,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29, pp. 109–136 (winter 1988).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch., “Using Programming Concepts in Deontic Reasoning,” pp. 117–145 in Semantics and Contextual Expression, ed. R. Bartsch, J.F.A.K. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, FORIS publications, Dordrecht/Riverton (1989).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Milner, R., A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Springer (1980). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 92.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nicola, R. de and Hennessy, M., “CCS without τ's,” pp. 138–152 in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT), ed. H. Ehrig, R. Kowalski, G. Levi and U. Montanari, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 249 (march 1987).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Åqvist, L., “Deontic Logic,” pp. 605–714 in Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, ed. D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, Reidel (1984).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smolka, G., Nutt, W., Goguen, J.A., and Meseguer, J., “Order-Sorted Equational Computation,” SEKI Report SR-87-14, Universität Kaiserslautern (December 1987).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wieringa, R.J., Weigand, H., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., and Dignum, F., “The Inheritance of Dynamic and Deontic Integrity Constraints,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, To be published.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wieringa, R.J., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., and Weigand, H., “Specifying Dynamic and Deontic Integrity Constraints,” Data and Knowledge Engineering 4, pp. 157–189 (1989).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wright, G.H. von, An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action, North-Holland (1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. -J. Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  • R. J. Wieringa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceFree UniversityAmsterdam

Personalised recommendations