Encyclopedia of Database Systems

Living Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Visual Formalisms

  • David Harel
  • Shahar Maoz
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7993-3_444-2

Definition

Visual formalisms are diagrammatic and intuitive, yet mathematically rigorous languages. Thus, despite their clear visual appearance, they come complete with a syntax that determines what is allowed, and semantics that determines what the allowed things mean. The main emphasis in the visuality is typically placed on topological relationships between diagrammatic elements, such as encapsulation, connectedness, and adjacency. Geometric and metric aspects, such as size, shape, line-style, and color, may also be part of the formalism. Icons can be used too. Such languages typically involve boxes and arrows, and are often hierarchical and modular. Visual formalisms are typically used for the design of hardware and software systems. This includes structural as well as more complex behavioral specifications.

Historical Background

Two of the oldest examples of visual formalisms are graphs and Venn diagrams, which are both originally due to Euler [7, 8]. A graph, in its most basic...

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Venn Diagram Visual Formalism Formal Verification Visual Language 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Catarci T, Costabile MF, Levialdi S, Batini C. Visual query systems for databases: a survey. J Vis Lang Comput. 1997;8(2):215–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen PP-S. The entity-relationship model – toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1976;1(1):9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damm W, Harel D. LSCs: breathing life into message sequence charts. J Form Methods Syst Des. 2001;19(1):45–80. Preliminary version in Ciancarini P, Fantechi A, Gorrieri R (eds). In: Proceedings of 3rd IFIP International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems; 1999. p. 293–312.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Battista G, Eades P, Tamassia R, Tollis IG. Graph drawing: algorithms for the visualization of graphs. Upper Saddle River: Prentice‐Hall PTR; 1998.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards AWF. Cogwheels of the mind: the story of Venn diagrmas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Efroni S, Harel D, Cohen IR. Towards rigorous comprehension of biological complexity: modeling execution and visualization of thymic T cell maturation. Gen Res. 2003;13(11):2485–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Euler L. Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae, vol. 8. 1741.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Euler L. Lettres il une Princesse d’Allemagne, vol. 2. 1772. letters 102–108.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagin R. Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational database schemes. J ACM. 1983;30(3):514–50.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fagin R, Mendelzon AO, Ullman JD. A simplified universal relation assumption and its properties. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1982;7(3):343–60.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher J, Piterman N, Hubbard EJA, Stern MJ, Harel D. Computational insights into C. elegans vulval development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102(6):1951–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Floyd RW. Assigning meanings to programs. In Schwartz JT, editor. Proceedings of Symposia on Applied Mathematics, vol. 19. American Mathematical Society; 1967. p. 19–32.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gane CP, Sarson T. Structured systems analysis: tools and techniques. Englewood: Prentice‐Hall; 1979.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldstine HH, von Neumann J. Planning and coding of problems for an electronic computing instrument. Princeton: Institute for Advanced Study; 1947. Reprinted in Taub AH, editor. von Neumann’s collected works, vol. 5. London: Pergamon; 1963, p. 80–151.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green TRG. Pictures of programs and other processes, or how to do things with lines. Behav Inform Technol. 1982;1:3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel D. Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Program. 1987;8:231–74.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel D. On visual formalisms. Commun ACM. 1988;31(5):514–30.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harel D, Gery E. Executable object modeling with statecharts. Computer. 1997; 31–42.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel D, Marelly R. Come, let’s play: scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Berlin: Springer; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ITU. ITU-T recommendation Z.100: specification and description language. Technical report, International Telecommunication Union. 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ITU. ITU-T recommendation Z.120: message sequence charts. Technical report, International Telecommunication Union. 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kent S. Constraint diagrams: visualizing invariants in object-oriented models. In: Proceedings of 12th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages & Applications; 1997. p. 327–41.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group (OMG). UML: unified modeling language. Available at: http://www.omg.org
  24. 24.
    Reisig W. Petri nets: an introduction, monographs in theoretical computer science, An EATCS series, vol. 4. Berlin: Springer; 1885.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venn J. Symbolic logic. London: Macmillan; 1881.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael