Object oriented institutions to specify symbolic computation systems

The specification of the data structures used in EAT, a software system for symbolic computation in algebraic topology, is based on an operation that defines a link among different specification frameworks like hidden algebras and coalgebras. In this paper, this operation is extended using the notion of institution, giving rise to three institution encodings. These morphisms define a commutative diagram which shows three possible views of the same construction, placing it in an equational algebraic institution, in a hidden institution or in a coalgebraic institution. Moreover, these morphisms can be used to obtain a new description of the final objects of the categories of algebras in these frameworks, which are suitable abstract models for the EAT data structures. Thus, our main contribution is a formalization allowing us to encode a family of data structures by means of a single algebra (which can be described as a coproduct on the image of the institution morphisms). With this aim, new particular definitions of hidden and, coalgebraic institutions are presented.

[1]  Jacques Calmet,et al.  A Unified-Algebra-Based Specification Language for Symbolic Computing , 1993, DISCO.

[2]  Dominique Duval.  Diagrammatic Specifications , 2003, Math. Struct. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Vico Pascual,et al.  An Object-oriented Interpretation of the EAT System , 2003, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing.

[4]  Jacques Calmet,et al.  Unified Domains and Abstract Computational Structures , 1992, AISMC.

[5]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  Towards an Algebraic Semantics for the Object Paradigm , 1992, COMPASS/ADT.

[6]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  A hidden Herbrand theorem: combining the object and logic paradigms , 2002, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[7]  Hans-Dieter Ehrich,et al.  Specification of abstract data types , 1996 .

[8]  Armando M. Haeberer.  Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  Jan J. M. M. Rutten,et al.  Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Julio Rubio,et al.  Constructive algebraic topology , 2002 .

[11]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming , 1992, JACM.

[12]  Răzvan Diaconescu,et al.  Hiding and behaviour: an institutional approach , 1994 .

[13]  Grigore Rosu,et al.  Institution Morphisms , 2013, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[14]  Michel Bidoit,et al.  Observational Logic , 1998, AMAST.

[15]  Vico Pascual,et al.  Specifying implementations , 1999, ISSAC '99.

[16]  César Domínguez,et al.  Modeling inheritance as coercion in a symbolic computation system , 2001, ISSAC '01.

[17]  Andrzej Tarlecki,et al.  Towards Heterogeneous Specifications , 1998, FroCoS.

[18]  Grigore Rosu,et al.  Hiding More of Hidden Algebra , 1999, World Congress on Formal Methods.

[19]  Alexander Kurz,et al.  On institutions for modular coalgebraic specifications , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Corina Cîrstea.  A coalgebraic equational approach to specifying observational structures , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Michel Bidoit,et al.  Constructor-based observational logic , 2006, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[22]  César Domínguez,et al.  Hidden Specification of a Functional System , 2001, EUROCAST.

[23]  Andrea Corradini,et al.  A Completeness result for equational deduction in coalgebraic specification , 1997, WADT.

[24]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  A hidden agenda , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Corina Cîrstea,et al.  Coalgebra semantics for hidden algebra: Parameterised objects an inheritance , 1997, WADT.