Using eternity variables to specify and prove a serializable database interface

Science of Computer Programming

Volumn 51, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 47-85

  Hesselink, Wim H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Backward invariant; Forward invariant; History variables; Implementation; Mechanical verification; Prophecy variables; Serializability; Specification

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA PROCESSING; DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; FUNCTIONS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING; THEOREM PROVING;

BACKWARD INVARIANTS; FORWARD INVARIANTS; HISTORY VARIABLES; IMPLEMENTATION; MECHANICAL VERIFICATION; PROPHECY VARIABLES; SERIALIZABILITY; SPECIFICATION;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

EID: 1942421737     PISSN: 01676423     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scico.2003.06.001     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Abadi M., Lamport L. The existence of refinement mappings. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 82:1991;253-284.
2. M. Abadi, G.D. Plotkin, A logical view of composition, SRC Research Report 86, Digital Systems Research Center, 1992.
3. Boyer R.S., Moore J.S. A Computational Logic Handbook. 2nd Ed. 1997;Academic Press, New York.
4. Broy M. Algebraic and functional specification of an interactive serializable database interface. Distrib. Comput. 6:1992;5-18.
5. Hesselink W.H. The verified incremental design of a distributed spanning tree algorithm. extended abstract Formal Aspects Comput. 11:1999;45-55.
6. Hesselink W.H. An assertional criterion for atomicity. Acta Inform. 38:2002;343-366.
7. Hesselink W.H. Eternity variables to simulate specifications. Boiten E.A., Möller B. Mathematics of Program Construction, Proc. MPC. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 2386:2002;117-130 Springer, Berlin.
8. W.H. Hesselink, Eternity variables to prove simulation of specifications, ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, to appear. http://www.acm.org/tocl/accepted.html.
9. W.H. Hesselink, www.cs.rug.nl/~wim/mechver/eternity contains the two NQTHM events files newprelude and sdi.
10. Kurki-Suonio R. Operational specification with joint actions. Distrib. Comput. 6:1992;19-37.
11. Lam S.S., Shankar A.U. Specifying modules to satisfy interfaces. a state transition system approach Distrib. Comput. 6:1992;39-63.
12. Lamport L. Critique of the Lake Arrowhead three. Distrib. Comput. 6:1992;65-71.
13. Lamport L. The temporal logic of actions. ACM Trans. Programming Lang. Systems. 16:1994;872-923.
14. Lynch N.A. Distributed Algorithms. 1996;Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco.
15. Manna Z., Pnueli A. Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. 1995;Springer, Berlin.
16. Moore J.S., Porter G. The apprentice challenge. ACM Trans. Programming Lang. Systems. 24:2002;193-216.
17. Owicki S., Gries D. An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs. Acta Inform. 6:1976;319-340.
18. Schneider F.B. Introduction. Distrib. Comput. 6:1992;1-3.