Comparative metric semantics for concurrent prolog

Bakker, J. W. de; Kok, Joost N.

doi:10.1016/0304-3975(90)90060-u

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This general method for comparing different semantic models has already been applied successfully to several programming paradigms varying from notions related to concurrency [7] to notions related to logic programming [4] and object-oriented programming [28]. The present paper shows another application of this technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Comparative semantics for a real-time programming language with integration

Breugel

1991

Tapsoft '91

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An operational and a denotational semantic model are presented for a real-time programming language incorporating the concept of integration. Integration enables us to specify a restricted form of unbounded non-determinism. For example, the execution of an action at an arbitrary moment in a time interval can be specified using the concept of integration. The operational and the denotational model are proved to be equivalent using a general method based on higher-order transformations and complete metric spaces. Banach~s fixed point theorem, which states that a contraction on a complete metric space has a unique fixed point, will be used to define and to compare semantic models. Also Michael's theorem, which roughly states that a compact union of compact sets is compact, will be used for the definition of semantic models. I n t r o d u c t i o nI~eal-time programming can be viewed as traditional concurrency supplied with timing constraints [81]. Because these timing constraints cause more complexity, the advantages of high-level languages are even greater in real-time programming than in concurrency and sequential programming. Several languages, like RTL [22], have been designed specifically for real-time programming. Other languages are extensions of already existing languages, for example, the language TCSP [14] is an extension of the language CSP [21]. In real-time programming the correctness of a program depends not only on the flow of control. The program should also meet its timing constraints [30]. Therefore new semantic models should be developed. Several models both operational [2,16,19] and denotational [15,24,27] have already been provided.In this paper a simple real-time programming language is studied. Apart from the traditional programming constructs, this language incorporates timed atomic actions and integration. Timed atomic actions are atomic actions each provided with some timing information. This timing information denotes when the atomic action should be executed. The concept of integration has been introduced in [2]. A statement is integrated over a time set, which is a subset of the time domain, i.e. a non-deterministically chosen value from the time set is passed to the statement. Integration enables us to specify the execution of an action at an arbitrary moment in a time interval, for example, fte [1.o3, 2.tq (a,t)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Comparative semantics for a real-time programming language with integration

Breugel

1991

Tapsoft '91

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we progress in our comparative semantics study, we will construct a category of semantic domains linked by abstraction functions. The comparative semantics of specification languages [19] of logic programming, of concurrent programming [9] or of coordination languages [5], for instance, is already well developed and integrates developments and tools from different languages.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD

Trigaux

Heymans

Schobbens

et al. 2006

Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature Diagrams are a popular family of modelling languages used for engineering requirements in software product lines. In our previous research, we advocated the use of formal semantics as an indispensable means to clarify discussions about feature diagrams and to facilitate safe and efficient tool automation. We presented a generic formal semantics for feature diagram languages and criteria to compare them. However, other formal semantics exist. We already informally argued in favour of our semantics which, we think, is more abstract, more concise and not tool dependent. However, some of these claims needed to be further objectified. The purpose of this paper is to compare the semantics proposed by van Deursen and Klint with our own following the methodology of comparative semantics. To be made amenable to comparison, van Deursen and Klint's tool-based definition is first recalled and redefined by correcting some minor mistakes. Their semantics is then mapped to ours through an abstraction function. We then proceed to compare the expressiveness, embeddability and succinctness of both approaches. The study tends to confirm our semantic choices as well as our tool-independent methodology. It also demonstrates that van Deursen and Klint's language is fully expressive and provides various results likely to help tool developers, especially for implementing model transformations.

show abstract

“…), and shows how the basic metric techniques apply as well to this, at first sight rather remote, territory. Related work includes [ 11,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 2 will be devoted to the four (systems of) equations. The techniques applied here are partly general (as in (17,5]), partly more ad-hoe, and then follow (11]. Section 3 illustrates the use of domains in semantic design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four domains for concurrency

Bakker¹,

Warmerdam²

1991

Theoretical Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We give four domains for concurrency in a uniform way by means of domain equations. The domains are intended for modelling the four possible combinations of linear time versus branching time, and of interleaving versus noninterleaving concurrency. We use the linear time, noninterleaved domain to give operational and denotational semantics for a simple concurrent language with recursion, and prove that (} ~ ftl. Prologue Among the reasons to fondly remember my first IFIP Congress (New York, 1965), I recall a meeting with the late Professors Andrei Ershov and Aad van Wijngaarden, both then already famous scholars, who strongly encouraged me to continue my incipient work on programming language semantics. Among the reasons to somewhat embarrassedly remember the 6th MFCS meeting (Tatranska Lomnica, 1977), I recall a discussion with Andrei Ershov on my unsatisfactory first steps towards an understanding of concurrency semantics and infinite behaviour (cf. [6]). The paper to follow reports on how we spent the 1980s in Amsterdam working to remedy this. Among the reasons to sadly remember my otherwise so enjoyable visit to Akademgorodok in the fall of 1988, I recall in sorrow the news about the mortal illness and death of Academician Andrei Ershov, eminent computer scientist and world specialist in programming.

show abstract

Comparative metric semantics for concurrent prolog

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Comparative semantics for a real-time programming language with integration

Comparative semantics for a real-time programming language with integration

Comparative semantics of Feature Diagrams: FFD vs. vDFD

Four domains for concurrency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About