Lambda Expressions in Casl Architectural Specifications

  • Mihai Codescu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7137)


Casl architectural specifications provide a way to specify the structure of the implementations of software systems. Their semantics has been introduced in two manners: the first is purely model-theoretic and the second attempts to discharge model semantics conditions statically based on a diagram of dependencies between components (extended static semantics). In the case of lambda expressions, which are used to define the way generic units are built, the two semantics do not agree. We present a number of situations of practical importance when the current situation is unsatisfactory and propose a series of changes to the extended static semantics to remedy this.


Generic Unit Model Semantic Static Semantic Unit Expression Signature Morphism 
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. 1.
    Baumeister, H., Bert, D.: Algebraic specification in Casl. In: Frappier, M., Habrias, H. (eds.) Software Specification Methods: An Overview Using a Case Study, ch. 12. FACIT (Formal Approaches to Computing and Information Technology), pp. 209–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bidoit, M., Mosses, P.D. (eds.): Casl User Manual. LNCS, vol. 2900. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bidoit, M., Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Architectural specifications in Casl. Formal Aspects of Computing 13, 252–273 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mosses, P.D. (ed.): Casl Reference Manual. LNCS, vol. 2960. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 39, 95–146 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffman, P.: Verifying Generative casl Architectural Specifications. In: Wirsing, M., Pattinson, D., Hennicker, R. (eds.) WADT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2755, pp. 233–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffman, P.: Architectural Specifications and Their Verification. PhD thesis, Warsaw University (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mossakowski, T., Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: A Simple Refinement Language for Casl. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Mosses, P., Orejas, F. (eds.) WADT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3423, pp. 162–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., Lüttich, K.: The Heterogeneous Tool Set, Hets. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 519–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Toward formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: implementations revisited. Acta Informatica 25, 233–281 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schröder, L., Mossakowski, T., Tarlecki, A., Klin, B., Hoffman, P.: Semantics of Architectural Specifications in CASL. In: Hussmann, H. (ed.) FASE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2029, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihai Codescu
    • 1
  1. 1.DFKI GmbHBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations