• Mike Ainsworth
  • Peter J. L. Wallis
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)


One way of tackling the problems of large-scale formal specification is to use a series of partial specifications. These viewpoint specifications have several advantages for the specification stage of a development, since their flexibility is highly suited to incremental specification and distributed working. However, in order to implement such a specification, we must find an amalgamation— a single specification which combines the properties of each of the viewpoint specifications. This process is related to refinement, and can be formalised in terms of a modified refinement relation, which we call co-refinement.


Proof Obligation Conservative Extension Data Refinement Specification Constructor Weak Precondition 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ainsworth, M, Cruickshank, AH, Groves, LJ, & Wallis, PJL. 1993 (18th-20th August). Formal Specification via Viewpoints. Pages 218–237 of: Hosking, J (ed), Proc. 13th New Zealand Computer Conference. New Zealand Computer Society, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, M, Cruickshank, AH, Groves, LJ, & Wallis, PJL. 1994. Viewpoint Specification and Z. Information and Software Technology, 36 (1). (To appear).Google Scholar
  3. Batini, C, Lenzerini, M, & Navathe, SB. 1986. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4), 323–364.Google Scholar
  4. Feather, MS. 1989. Constructing specifications by combining parallel elabora- tions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15 (2), 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Groves, LJ. 1992. Private communication.Google Scholar
  6. Hoare, CAR. 1985. Communicating Sequential Processes. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacob, JL. 1989. Refinement of Shared Systems. Pages 27–36 of: McDermid, J (ed), The Theory and Practice of Refinement: Approaches to the Formal Development of Large-Scale Software Systems. Butterworths.Google Scholar
  8. Josephs, MB. 1988. The Data Refinement Calculator for Z. Information Processing Letters, 27, 29–33.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Kotonya, G, & Sommerville, I. 1992. Viewpoints for requirements definition. Software Engineering Journal,7(6), 375–387.Google Scholar
  10. Morgan, C. 1988. The specification statement.ACM TOPLAS, 10(3), 403–419. Reprinted in (Morgan et al., 1988). Google Scholar
  11. Morgan, C. 1990. Programming from Specifications. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan, C, Robinson, K, & Gardiner, P. 1988. On the Refinement Calculus. Technical Monograph PRG-70. Oxford University Computing Laboratory Programming Research Group.Google Scholar
  13. Morris, JM. 1987. A Theoretical Basis for Stepwise Refinement and the Pro- gramming Calculus. Science of Computer Programming, 9 (3), 287–306.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Wallis, PJL. 1992. A New Approach to Modular Formal Description. Technical Report 92–57. University of Bath.Google Scholar
  15. Wallis, PJL. 1993. Modular Formal Description. Submitted to Computer Journal.Google Scholar
  16. Ward, N. 1993. Adding specification constructors to the refinement calculus. Pages 652–670 of: Woodcock, JCP, & Larsen, PG (eds), FME’93: Industrial-Strength Formal Methods. Odense, Denmark: Springer-Verlag, for Formal Methods Europe. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 670.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Ainsworth
    • 1
  • Peter J. L. Wallis
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mathematical Sciences, University of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations