Complete Calculi for Structured Specifications in Fork Algebra

In previous articles we presented Argentum, a tool for reasoning across heterogeneous specifications based on the language of fork algebras. Argentum's foundations were formalized in the framework of institutions. The formalization made simple to describe a methodology capable of producing a complete system desription from partial views, eventually written in different logical languages. Structured specifications were introduced by Sannella and Tarlecki and extensively studied by Borzyszkowski. The latter also presented conditions under which the calculus for structured specifications is complete. Using fork algebras as a "universal" institution capable of representing expressive logics (such as dynamic and temporal logics), requires using a fork language that includes a reflexive-transitive closure operator. The calculus thus obtained does not meet the conditions required by Borzyszkowski. In this article we present structure building operators (SBOs) over fork algebras, and provide a complete calculus for these operators.

[1]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  Interpretability of first-order linear temporal logics in fork algebras , 2006, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[2]  A. Tarski,et al.  A Formalization Of Set Theory Without Variables , 1987 .

[3]  Donald Sannella,et al.  Extended ML: Past, Present, and Future , 1990, ADT.

[4]  Till Mossakowski,et al.  The Heterogeneous Tool Set (Hets) , 2007, VERIFY.

[5]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  Interpretability of First-Order Dynamic Logic in a Relational Calculus , 2001, RelMiCS.

[6]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[7]  David Hutchison,et al.  Local Area Networks: An Advanced Course , 1988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Andrzej Tarlecki.  Moving Between Logical Systems , 1995, COMPASS/ADT.

[9]  Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,et al.  Operational Semantics for Order-Sorted Algebra , 1985, ICALP.

[10]  María Victoria Cengarle,et al.  A Heterogeneous Approach to UML Semantics , 2008, Concurrency, Graphs and Models.

[11]  J. Zilhão,et al.  Time is on my side , 2011 .

[12]  R. Diaconescu.  Institution-independent model theory , 2008 .

[13]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  Fork Algebras as a Sufficiently Rich Universal Institution , 2006, AMAST.

[14]  K. Brown,et al.  Graduate Texts in Mathematics , 1982 .

[15]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language User Guide , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[16]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  Fork Algebras in Algebra, Logic and Computer Science , 2002, Fundam. Informaticae.

[17]  Alfred Tarski,et al.  Relational selves as self-affirmational resources , 2008 .

[18]  Stanley Burris,et al.  A course in universal algebra , 1981, Graduate texts in mathematics.

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

[20]  Tomasz Borzyszkowski.  Logical systems for structured specifications , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Roger D. Maddux.  Finitary Algebraic Logic , 1989, Math. Log. Q..

[22]  Gunther Schmidt,et al.  Relational Methods in Computer Science , 1999, Inf. Sci..

[23]  Donald Sannella,et al.  Specifications in an Arbitrary Institution , 1988, Inf. Comput..

[24]  Andrzej Tarlecki.  Abstract specification theory: an overview , 2003 .

[25]  Doina Bucur,et al.  Secure Data Flow in a Calculus for Context Awareness , 2008, Concurrency, Graphs and Models.

[26]  Grigore Rosu,et al.  On Equational Craig Interpolation , 2000, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[27]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  Introducing Institutions , 1983, Logic of Programs.