Advertisement

A linear temporal logic approach to objects with transactions

  • Grit Denker
  • Jaime Ramos
  • Carlos Caleiro
  • Amílcar Sernadas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1349)

Abstract

Our concern is the high level specification of reactive software systems such as information systems. We adopt an object oriented, temporal logic based approach to specification. The notion of transaction incorporates various application domains, for instance transactions as abstractions from processes as known from refinement theory, transactions as abstractions from business processes as known in business process modelling or database transactions. In this paper we investigate object specifications with transactions. We illustrate the use of transactions by examples given in an object oriented style and introduce a linear temporal logic with transactions (Tosl) which serves as denotional model for such object specifications with transactions. We explain how Tosl is semantically defined in terms of life cycles and illustrate by example the translation of object specifications to Tosl. Using Tosl for system specification results in sets of formulae which are independent from the level of granularity.

Keywords

linear temporal logic formal specification language object orientation specification method refinement transaction reactive system 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper, and A. Pnueli. A Really Abstract Concurrent Model and its Temporal Logic. ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 173–183, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonner, A.J. and Kifer, M. Concurrency and Communication in Transaction Logic. In M. Maher, editor, Proc. Joint Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming (JICSLP96), September 2–6, 1996, Bonn, Germany. The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Borba and J. Goguen. On Refinement and FOOPS. Technical Report, PRG-TR-17-94, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Programming Research Group, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Denker. Reification — Changing Viewpoint but Preserving Truth. In M. Haveraan, O. Owe, and O.-J. Dahl, editors, Recent Trends in Data Types Specification, Proc. 11th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types joint with the 8th General COMPASS Meeting. Oslo, Norway, September 1995. Selected papers., pages 182–199. Springer, 1996. LNCS 1130.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Denker. Semantic Refinement of Concurrent Object Systems Based on Serializability. In B. Freitag, C. B. Jones, C. Lengauer, and H.-J. Schek, editors, Object Orientation with Parallelism and Persistence, pages 105–126. Kluwer Academic Publ., 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Denker and P. Hartel. Troll — An Object Oriented Formal Method for Distributed Information System Design: Syntax and Pragmatics. Technical Report 97-03, TU Braunschweig, 1997. http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/idb/publications/pub_97Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H.-D. Ehrich. Object Specification. Technical Report 96-07, TU Braunschweig, 1996. http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/idb/publications/pub_96Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H.-D. Ehrich and A. Sernadas. Local Specification of Distributed Families of Sequential Objects. In E. Astesiano, G. Reggio, and A. Tarlecki, editors, Recent Trends in Data Types Specification, Proc. 10th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types joint with the 5th COMPASS Workshop, S.Margherita, Italy, May/June 1994, Selected papers, pages 219–235. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 906, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.L. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Sometimes “Tommorrow” is “Sometime” — Action Refinement in a Temporal Logic of Objects. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach, editors, Proc. First Int. Conf. on Temporal Logic, ICTL, Bonn, Germany, July 1994, pages 48–66. Springer, 1994. LNAI 827.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Huhn. Action Refinement and Property Inheritance in Systems of Sequential Agents. In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Concurrency Theory, Concur'96, 26–29 August, Pisa, Italy. Springer, 1996. LNCS 1119.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Huhn, H. Wehrheim, and G. Denker. Action Refinement in System Specification: Comparing a Process Algebraic and an Object-Oriented Approach. In U. Herzog and H. Hermanns, editors, GI/ITG-Fachgespräch: “Formale Beschreibungstechniken für verteilte Systeme”, 20/21. Juni 1996, Universität Erlangen, Germany, number 29/9 in Arbeitsbericht des IMMD, pages 77–88, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Jungclaus, G. Saake, T. Hartmann, and C. Sernadas. Troll — A Languag for Object-Oriented Specification of Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(2):175–211, April 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Kozen and J. Tiuryn. Logics of Programs. In J. Van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science B — Formal Models and Semantics, chapter 789–840. 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Lamport. Specifying Concurrent Program Modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 5:190–222, January 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Lamport. The Temporal Logic of Actions. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):872–923, May 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U. Lechner, C. Lengauer, and M. Wirsing. An Object-Oriented Airport: Specification and Refinement in Maude. In Astesiano, E. and Reggio, G. and Tarlecki, A., editor, Recent Trends in Data Types Specification, Proc. 10th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types joint with the 5th COMPASS Workshop, S.Margherita, Italy, May/June 1994, Selected papers, pages 351–367. Springer, Berlin, LNCS 906, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Liu and M. A. Orgun. Dealing with Multiple Granularity of Time in Temporal Logic Programming. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 22(5 & 6):699–720, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Lodaya, R. Ramanujam, and P.S. Thiagarajan. Temporal Logics for Communicating Sequential Agents. Int. Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 3(2):117–159, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. R. Pratt. Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare Logic. In Proc. 17th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 109–121, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Reiter. Proving Properties of States in the Situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 64(2):337–351, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Sernadas and J. Ramos. The GNOME Language: Syntax, Semantics and Calculus. Technical Report, Instituto Superior Téchnico (IST), Dept. Mathemática, Av. Roviso Pais, 1096 Lisboa Codex, Portugal, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and J.F. Costa. Object Specification Logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(5):603–630, October 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and J. Ramos. A temporal logic approach to object certification. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 19:267–294, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Zucca. Implementation of data structures in an imperative framework. In E. Astesiano, G. Reggio, and A. Tarlecki, editors, Recent Trends in Data Types Specification, Proc. 10th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types joint with the 5th COMPASS Workshop, S.Margherita, Italy, May/June 1994, Selected papers, pages 483–498. Springer, Berlin, 1995. LNCS 906.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grit Denker
    • 1
  • Jaime Ramos
    • 2
  • Carlos Caleiro
    • 2
  • Amílcar Sernadas
    • 2
  1. 1.Informatik, Abt. DatenbankenTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.Departamento de MatemáticaInstituto Superior TécnicoLisboa CodexPortugal

Personalised recommendations