Integrating ASSPEGIQUE and LP

  • Christine Choppy
  • Michel Bidoit
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

In this paper, we present various issues w.r.t. proving properties of PLUSS specifications with LP, and building an integrated interface between ASSPEGIQUE (the environment that supports PLUSS) and LP. We investigate how general properties can be proved using an adequate presentation of the specification that may be understood by LP. We address the issue of interfacing the two environments in a way that would be as “transparent” to the user as possible.

Keywords

Editing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Slog 1.1, User’s Manual, 1986. C.G.E. Report, Route de Nozay, 91460 Marcoussis, France.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Bernot and M. Bidoit. Proving the correctness of algebraically specified software: Modularity and Observability issues. In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST), 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Bidoit. The stratified loose approach: A generalization of initial and loose semantics. In Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, Selected Papers of the 5th Workshop on Specifications of Abstract Data Types, pages 1–22. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 332, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Bidoit. Pluss, un langage pour le développement de spécifications algébriques modulaires. Thèse d’Etat, Université Paris-Sud, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Bidoit, F. Capy, and C. Choppy. The design and specification of the ASSPEGIQUE data base. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Design and Implementation of Symbolic Computation Systems (DISCO), pages 205–214. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 429, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Bidoit and C. Choppy. Asspegique: an integrated environment for algebraic specifications. In Proc. of the 1st International Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT), pages 246260. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 186, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Bidoit, C. Choppy, C. Roques, and F. Voisin. Prototyping algebraic specifications with ASSPEGIQUE+, 1992. In preparation.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Bidoit, C. Choppy, C. Roques, and F. Voisin. About the semantics of renaming in PLUSS, 1993. In preparation.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Bidoit, C. Choppy, and F. Voisin. The Asspegique specification environment: Motivations and Design. In Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Theory and Applications of Abstract Data Types, pages 54–72. Springer-Verlag I.F.B. 116, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Bidoit, M.-C. Gaudel, and A. Mauboussin. How to make algebraic specifications more understandable? An experiment with the Pluss specification language. Science of Computer Programming, 12 (1), 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. Biebow and J. Hagelstein. Algebraic specification of synchronization and errors: A telephonic example. In Proc. of the 1st International Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT), pages 294–308. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 186, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Choppy. Formal specifications, prototyping and integration tests. In Proc. of the 1st European Software Engineering Conference, pages 185–192, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. Choppy and S. Kaplan. Mixing abstract and concrete modules: specification, development and prototyping. In Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 173–184, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Dauchy and B. Marre. Test data selection from algebraic specifications: application to an automatic subway module. In Proc. of the 3rd European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC’91). Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 550, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. Ehrig, W. Fey, and H. Hansen. ACT ONE: an algebraic specification language with two levels of semantics. Technical Report 83–03, TU Berlin FB 20, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of algebraic specification 1. Equations and initial semantics, volume 6 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. Forgaard and J. Guttag. REVE: a term rewriting system generator with failure-resistant Knuth-Bendix, 1984. Proc. of an NSF workshop on the rewrite rule laboratory, and Report n° 84GEN008, General Electric.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    L. Fribourg. SLOG: a logic programming language interpreter based on clausal superposition and rewriting. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Logic Programming, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Garland and J. Guttag. An overview of LP, the Larch Prover. In Proc. of the Third International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, pages 137–151. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 355, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Garland and J. Guttag. A Guide to LP, The Larch Prover. Technical Report 82, DEC-SRC, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Garland, J. Guttag, and J. Horning. Debugging Larch Shared Language Specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16 (9): 1044–1057, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Garland, J. Guttag, K. Jones, A. Modet, and J. Wing. Larch: languages and tools for formal specification, 1992. Draft book.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Guttag, J. Horning, and A. Modet. Report on the Larch Shared Language: Version 2.3. Technical Report 58, DEC-SRC, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J.V. Guttag and J.J. Horning. Report on the Larch shared language. Science of Computer Programming, 6 (2): 103–134, 1986.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    S. Kaplan. A compiler for conditional term rewriting systems. In Proc. of the 2nd Conference on Rewrite Techniques and Applications. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 256, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    S. Kaplan. Simplifying conditional term rewriting systems. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 4: 295–334, 1987.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    P. Lescanne. Computer experiments with the REVE term rewriting systems generator. In Proc. of the 10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), 1983.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    A. Mauboussin, H. Perdrix, M. Bidoit, M.-C. Gaudel, and J. Hagelstein. From an ERAE requirements specification to a PLUSS algebraic specification: a case study. In Proc. of the Meteor workshop, Algebraic methods II, Mierlo, L.N.C.S. 490, Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    D.T. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Building specifications in an arbitrary institution. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Semantics of Data Types. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 173, 1984.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    F. Voisin. CIGALE: a tool for interactive grammar construction and expression parsing. Science of Computer Programming, 7 (1): 61–86, 1986.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    F. Voisin. A bottom-up adaptation of Earley parsing algorithm. In Proc. of the Int. Workshop on programming language implementation and logic programming, pages 146–160. Springer-Verlag L.N.C.S. 348, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    F. Voisin. A new front-end for the Larch Prover. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Larch, ( U. Martin and J. Wing, editors), Workshops in Computing Science Series this volume. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    M. Wand. Final algebra semantics and data type extensions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 19:27–44 1979.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    M. Wirsing, M. Broy, W. Dosch, H. Partsch, and P. Pepper. On hierarchies of abstract data types. Acta Informatica, 20:1–33, 1983.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Choppy
    • 1
  • Michel Bidoit
    • 2
  1. 1.LRIC.N.R.S. U.R.A. 410 & Université Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance
  2. 2.LIENSC.N.R.S. U.R.A. 1327 & Ecole Normale SupérieureParis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations