Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Specifying with defaults: Compositional semantics

  • Contributed Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques (WADT 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1376))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 131 Accesses

Abstract

We present an abstract specification theory that formalizes non-monotonic composition constructs from specification languages providing explicit non-monotonic mechanisms as a specification facility. This theory generalizes the institutional framework from Goguen and Burstall by adding defeasibility mechanisms to a given institution. The denotation of a specification module consists of defaults (formulas organized by priority) that are assumed to be true in the absence of explicit information to the contrary. In other words defaults are assumed to be true unless they are overridden by other defaults of higher priority. Formulas that cannot be overriden are called axioms. Such structures of axioms and prioritized defaults are called hierarchic specifications. The abstract specification theory of hierarchic specifications consists in formalizing, independently of the underlying logic, the structuring operations of hierarchic specifications. These operations are defined both on the syntactical and semantical levels by canonical constructions on corresponding syntactical and semantical categories, and account for the modular construction of hierarchic specifications by combining, reusing and modifying (with overriding) previously specified modules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G. Strecker. Abstract and Concrete Categories. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Andréka, M. Ryan, and P.-Y. Schobbens. Operators and laws for combining preference relations. In R. J. Wieringa and R. Feenstra, editors, IS-CORE'94-Selected papers, pages 191–206. World Scientific Publishers, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Braß. Deduction with supernormal defaults. In P. Schmitt G. Brewka, K. Jantke, editor, Nonmonotonic and Inductive Logic-Second International Workshop, 1991, pages 153–174, Berlin, 1992. Springer 1.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Braß and U. W. Lipeck. Semantics of inheritance in logical object specifications. In Claude Delobel, Michael Kifer, and Yoshifumi Masunaga, editors, Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, 2nd Int. Conf. (DOOD'91), number 566 in LNCS, pages 411–430. Springer, 19911.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Braß, M. Ryan, and U. W. Lipeck. Hierarchical defaults in specifications. In G. Saake and A. Sernadas, editors, Information Systems-Correctness and Reusability, Workshop IS-CORE '91, number 91-03 in Informatik-Bericht, pages 179–201. TU Braunschweig, 19911.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Brewka. Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. Putting theories together to make specifications. In Raj Reddy, editor, Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 1045-1058, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  8. F. M. Dionisio, U. W. Lipeck, and S. Braß. Composition of default specifications. In R. J. Wieringa and R. Feenstra, editors, IS-CORE'94-Selected papers, pages 207–221. World Scientific Publishers, 19952.

    Google Scholar 

  9. F. Dionísio. Composition of Hierarchic Default Specifications. PhD thesis, University of Hannover, 19972.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Describing, structuring and implementing objects. In J. W. de Bakker, W. P. de Roever,, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages, number 489 in LNCS, pages 275–310. Springer, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Temporal theories as modulaarization units for concurrent system specification. Formal Aspects of Computing, 4:239–272, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Gäxdenfors, editor. Belief Revision. Cambridge Press, Cambridge, England, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. A. Goguen. A categorial manifesto. Technical report prg-72, Programming Research Group, University of Oxford, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. A. Goguen and R. M. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM, 39(1):95–146, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. D. Makinson. Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica, 52:339–379, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. McCarthy. Circumscription-a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D. Poole. A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36:27–47, 1988.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. R. Reiter. On closed world data bases. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 55–76. Plenum Press, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Ryan. Defaults and revision in structured theories. In Proc. Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 362–373, Los Alamitos, CA, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Ryan. Representing defaults as sentences with reduced priority. In B. Nebel and W. Swartout, editors, Proc. Second International Conference on Principles of Knowlage Representation and Reasoning (KR'9,2). Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Sernadas, J. F. Costa, and C. Sernadas. An institution of object behaviour. In H. Ehrig and F. Orejas, editors, Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, pages 337–350. Springer, 1994. LNCS 7853.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Sernadas, J. Fiadeiro, C. Sernadas, and H.-D. Ehrich. Abstract object types: A temporal perspective. In B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer, and A. Pnueli, editors, Temporal Logic in Specification, pages 324–350. Springer, 19893.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and J. F. Costa. Object specification logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(5):603–630, 19953.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Y. Shoham. Nonmonotonic logics: meaning and utility. In Proceedings of IJCAI87, pages 388–392, Milan, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Mathematics, I.S.T., Technical Uni. of Lisbon, Portugal

    F. Miguel Dionísio

  2. Inst. für Informatik, Uni. Hannover, Germany

    Udo W. Lipeck

Authors
  1. F. Miguel Dionísio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Udo W. Lipeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Francesco Parisi Presicce

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dionísio, F.M., Lipeck, U.W. (1998). Specifying with defaults: Compositional semantics. In: Presicce, F.P. (eds) Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques. WADT 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1376. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64299-4_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64299-4_35

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64299-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69719-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation