On the emergence of properties in component-based systems

  • J. L. Fiadeiro
Conference Invited Talk
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1101)


When several components are interconnected to form a complex system, they may exhibit more properties (individually) than they had when considered in isolation. When we consider a category SPEC of component specifications taken as theories in some logic, properties are expressed as sentences of the underlying logic, and emergence of properties can be characterised by the fact that the morphisms that connect component specifications to the system specification are not conservative. Depending on the relationship that can be established between SPEC and a corresponding category PROG of programs, we show that such emergence phenomena can be interpreted in more than one way: (1) considering an individual component, the rest of the system is acting as a “regulator” for that component which, therefore, has a more constrained behaviour and exhibits more properties; (2) the overall good behaviour of the system requires cooperation of the components (some sort of sociability with regard to the rest of the system) which gives rise to the emergence of new properties. Some of these forms of sociability are characterised and related to well known properties of concurrent systems such as fairness and, more generally, to the assumptions that are made on the environment in rely-guarantee styles of specification.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Abadi and Lamport 93]
    M.Abadi and L.Lamport, “Composing Specifications”, ACM TOPLAS 15(1), 1993, 73–132.Google Scholar
  2. [Back and Kurki-Suonio 88]
    R.Back and R.Kurki-Suonio, “Distributed Cooperation with Action Systems”, ACM TOPLAS 10(4), 1988, 513–554.Google Scholar
  3. [Barreiro et al 95]
    N.Barreiro, J.Fiadeiro and T.Maibaum, “Politeness in Object Societies”, in R.Wieringa and R.Feenstra (eds) Information Systems — Correctness and Reusability, World Scientific Publishing Company 1995, 119–134.Google Scholar
  4. [Bougé and Francez 88]
    L.Bougé and N.Francez, “A Compositional Approach to Superimposition”, in Proc. 15th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages”, ACM Press 1988, 240–249.Google Scholar
  5. [Burstall and Goguen 77]
    R.Burstall and J.Goguen, “Putting Theories together to make Specifications”, in R.Reddy (ed) Proc Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1977, 1045–1058.Google Scholar
  6. [Chandy and Misra 88]
    K.Chandy and J.Misra, Parallel Program Design-A Foundation, Addison-Wesley 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [Collette 93]
    P.Collette, “Application of the Composition Principle to UNITY-like Specifications”, in M.C.Gaudel and J.P.Jouannaud (eds) TAPSOFT'93, LNCS 668, Springer-Verlag 1993, 230–242.Google Scholar
  8. [Fiadeiro and Maibaum 92]
    J.Fiadeiro and T.Maibaum, “Temporal Theories as Modularisation Units for Concurrent System Specification”, Formal Aspects of Computing 4(3), 1992, 239–272.Google Scholar
  9. [Fiadeiro and Maibaum 95]
    J.Fiadeiro and T.Maibaum, “Interconnecting Formalisms: supporting modularity, reuse and incrementality”, in G.E.Kaiser (ed) Proc. 3rd Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering, ACM Press 1995, 72–80.Google Scholar
  10. [Fiadeiro and Maibaum 96]
    J.Fiadeiro and T.Maibaum, Categorical Semantics of Parallel Program Design, Technical Report, available at∼llfGoogle Scholar
  11. [Francez and Forman 90]
    N.Francez and I.Forman, “Superimposition for Interacting Processes”, in CONCUR'90, LNCS 458, Springer-Verlag 1990, 230–245.Google Scholar
  12. [Goguen 71]
    J.Goguen, “Mathematical Representation of Hierarchically Organised Systems”, in E.Attinger (ed) Global Systems Dynamics, Krager 1971, 112–128.Google Scholar
  13. [Goguen 73]
    J.Goguen, “Categorical Foundations for General Systems Theory”, in F.Pichler and R.Trappl (eds) Advances in Cybernetics and Systems Research, Transcripta Books 1973, 121–130.Google Scholar
  14. [Goguen and Burstall 92]
    J.Goguen and R.Burstall, “Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for Specification and Programming”, Journal of the ACM 39(1), 1992, 95–146.Google Scholar
  15. [Goguen and Ginali 78]
    J.Goguen and S.Ginali, “A Categorical Approach to General Systems Theory”, in G.Klir (ed) Applied General Systems Research, Plenum 1978, 257–270.Google Scholar
  16. [Goldblatt 87]
    R.Goldblatt, Logics of Time and Computation, CSLI 1987.Google Scholar
  17. [Katz 93]
    S.Katz, “A Superimposition Control Construct for Distributed Systems”, ACM TOPLAS 15(2), 1993, 337–356.Google Scholar
  18. [Kurki-Suonio and Järvinen 89]
    R.Kurki-Suonio and H.Järvinen, “Action System Approach to the Specification and Design of Distributed Systems”, in Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Software Specification and Design, IEEE Press 1989, 34–40.Google Scholar
  19. [Manna and Pnueli 91]
    Z.Manna and A.Pnueli, The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems, Springer-Verlag 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [Sannella and Tarlecki 88]
    D.Sannella and A.Tarlecki, “Building Specifications in an Arbitrary Institution”, Information and Control 76, 1988, 165–210.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. L. Fiadeiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics Faculty of SciencesUniversity of LisbonLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations