Advertisement

Viewpoint consistency in ODP, a general interpretation

  • H. Bowman
  • E. A. Boiten
  • J. Derrick
  • M. W. A. Steen
Chapter
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

Multiple viewpoints are used in Open Distributed Processing (ODP) in order to decompose the complexity inherent in specifying distributed systems. Multiple viewpoints prompt the issue of consistency between viewpoints. The ODP reference model alludes to three different interpretations of consistency. This paper responds to this uncertainty by proposing a single all embracing interpretation of consistency. We show that our interpretation, firstly, satisfies all the basic requirements of a definition of consistency and, secondly, can be specialised to any of the three ODP reference model definitions. The generality of our definition will be illustrated through instantiation in the FDT LOTOS.

Keywords

Viewpoints Consistency ODP Formal Description Techniques LOTOS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ACGW94]
    M. Ainsworth, A. H. Cruickshank, L. J. Groves, and P. J. L. Wallis. Viewpoint specification and Z. Information and Software Technology, 36 (1): 43–51, February 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [BBDS95]
    E. Boiten, H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. Cross viewpoint consistency in Open Distributed Processing (intra language consistency). Technical Report S-95, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent at Canterbury, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [BDS95]
    H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M.W.A. Steen. Some results on cross viewpoint consistency checking. In K. Raymond and L. Armstrong, editors, IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, pages 399–412, Brisbane, Australia, February 1995. Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BSS86]
    E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and C. Steenbergen. Process specification, their implementation and their tests. In B. Sarikaya and G. V. Bochmann, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, VI, pages 349–360, Montreal, Canada, June 1986. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  5. [DEBS96]
    J. Derrick, E.A. Boiten, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Supporting ODP translating LOTOS to Z. In First IFIP International workshop on Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems Paris, March 1996. Chapman and Hall. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. [Led91]
    G. Leduc. On the Role of Implementation Relations in the Design of Distributed Systems using LOTOS. PhD thesis, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium, June 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [Lin95]
    P. F. Linington. RM-ODP: The Architecture. In K. Raymond and L. Armstrong, editors, IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, pages 1533, Brisbane, Australia, February 1995. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  8. [Mi189]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [SBD95]
    M. Steen, H. Bowman, and J. Derrick. Composition of LOTOS specifications. In P. Dembinski and M. Sredniawa, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification Warsaw, Poland, 1995. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Bowman
    • 1
  • E. A. Boiten
    • 1
  • J. Derrick
    • 1
  • M. W. A. Steen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Kent at Canterbury Computing LaboratoryUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations