Structuring Z Specifications with Views

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 1995, Pages 365-389

  Jackson, Daniel ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES; FORMAL LANGUAGES; INTERFACES (COMPUTER); STATE SPACE METHODS;

IMPLICIT DEFINITION; VIEW STRUCTURING; Z SPECIFICATIONS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0029389271     PISSN: 1049331X     EISSN: 15577392     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/226241.226249     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ainsworth M., Cruickshank, A. H, groves, L. J, and wallis, P J L. 1994. Viewpoint specification and Z. Inf Softw. Tech. 36, 1, 43–51.
2. Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J., and reiter, r. 1993. And nothing else changes: The frame problem in procedure specifications. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering (Baltimore, Md., May) IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif.
3. Derrick, J., Bowman, H., and steen, M 1995. Maintaining cross-viewpoint consistency using Z. In the IFIP International Conference on Open Distributed Processing. Chapman and Hall, 395–406.
4. Easterbrook, S and Nuseibeh, B. 1995 Managing inconsistencies in an evolving specification. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (York, England, Mar.). IEEE, New York.
5. Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., finkelstein, L, and goedicke, M. 1992. Viewpoints A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng 2, 1, 31–57. flinn B. AND SORENSEN, I. H. 1993. Specification Case Studies, I. Hayes, Ed., 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., chapter 5.
6. Garlan, D. 1987. Views for tools in integrated environments. Tech. Rep. CUM-CS-87-147, School for Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa. May.
7. Guttag, J., horning, J,, and wing, J. 1985. The Larch family of specification languages, IEEE Softw. 2, 5 (Sept.)
8. Guttag, J. V., horning, J. J., and model, A. 1990. Report on the Larch shared language: Version 2,3. Tech. Rep. 58, Digital Systems Research Center, Palo Alto, Calif. April.
9. Habermann, A. N., krueger, C., pierce, B., staudt, B,, and wenn, J. 1988. Programming with views. Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-87-177, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa. Jan.
10. Hall, A. 1993. A response to Florence, Dougal and Zebedee. FACS Eur. 1, 1 (Fall).
11. Hayes, I. 1992. VDM and Z: A comparative case study. Formal Aspects Comput. 4, 1.
12. hayes,I., Ed. 1993. Specification Case Studies, 2nd ad. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J.
13. Hayes, I. J., JONES, C. B., AND nicholls, J. E. 1993. Understanding the differences between VDM and Z. FACS Eur. 1, 1 (Fall).
14. Hoare, C. A. R. 1985. Programs are predicates. In Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages, C. A. R. Hoare and J. C. Shepherdson, Eds. Prentice-Hall International, London, U.K., 141–154.
15. Jackson, M. 1994. Software development method. In A Classical Minch Essays in Honour of C A. R. Hoare, A. W. Roscoe, Ed. Prentice-Hall International, London, U K.
16. Jackson, D. and Jackson, M. 1995. Problem decomposition for reuse. Tech Rep. CMU-CS-TR-95-108, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa. Jan. To appear m Software Engineering Journal.
17. Jones, C. B. 1990. Systematic Software Development Using VDM, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall International, London, U.K.
18. Maibaum, T. 1993. Temporal reasoning over deontic specifications In Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R. J. Wiermga, Eds. Wiley, London, England.
19. Morgan, C. 1993. Specification Case Studies, I. Hayes, Ed, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., chapter 3.
20. Morgan, C. C. and suerin, B. A. 1984, Specification of the UNIX filing system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-10, 2.
21. Nord, R. L. 1992. Deriving and manipulating module interfaces. Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-92-126, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa. May.
22. Spivey, J. 1992. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
23. SuFRIN, B. 1982. Formal specification of a display-oriented text editor. Sci. Comput. Program. 1, 157–202
24. Ward, N. 1993. Adding specification constructors to the refinement calculus. In Proceedings of FME ' x2018;93: 1st International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe (Odense, Denmark, Apr.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 670. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 652–670.
25. Woodcock, J. C. P. 1989. Mathematics as a management tool: Proof rules for promotion. In Proceedings of the Centre for Software Reliability Conference: Large Software Systems (Bristol, U.K., Sept.). Centre for Software Reliability, [city].
26. Woodcock, J. and Loomes, M. 1988. Case study; A telephone exchange. In Software Engineering Mathematics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., chapter 9.
27. Zave, P. 1985. A distributed alternative to finite-state-machine specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 7, 1 (Jan.), 10–36.
28. Zave, P. and Jackson, M. 1993, Conjunction as composition. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth. 2, 4 (Oct.), 379–411.
29. Zave, P. and Jackson, M. 1994. Where do operations come from? A multiparadigm specification technique. Tech. Mem., AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J. April.