L’écriture de l’administration électronique : le cas de Synergies

Coppey, Odile; Labelle, Sarah

doi:10.4074/s0336150010012019

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The function M is not a bijection in general. However this may happen, under the conditions of proposition 3.4: this is the exact parameterization property from [Lambán et al 2003], which is also proved in [Domínguez and Duval 2009]. It follows from [Rutten 2000] and [Hensel and Reichel 1995] that there is a terminal model of Σ A over M 0 .…”

Section: The Parameter Passing Process Is a 2-morphism Of Logicsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…There are several definitions of limit sketches (also called projective sketches), all of them are such that a limit sketch generates a category with limits [Coppey andLair 1984, Barr andWells 1999]. While a category with limits is a graph with identities, compositions, limit cones and tuples, satisfying a bunch of axioms, we define a limit sketch E as a graph with potential identities, compositions, limit cones and tuples, which become real features in the generated category with limits C (E).…”

Section: Limit Sketchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is a classical exercise to build limit sketches for T eq and S eq , then it is easy to check that L eq is a diagrammatic logic. A simplified description is given now, see [Domínguez and Duval 2009] for a detailed construction. The starting point is the limit sketch for graphs E gr , where the points Type and Term stand for the sets of vertices (or types) and edges (or terms) and the arrows dom and codom for the functions source (or domain) and target (or codomain):…”

Section: Reqmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be noted that in this definition of the equational theories and specifications, the equations are identities of terms; a more subtle point of view, where the equations in a theory form a congruence, can be found in [Domínguez and Duval 2009].…”

Section: -Prodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The specifications are the equational specifications together with a wide subspecification. Here is a way to build E dec,T from E eq,T which reflects the meaning of the word "decoration", a smaller choice for E dec,T can be found in [Domínguez and Duval 2009]. The decorations in this context are simply made of two keywords p for "pure" and g for "general"; some terms are pure, all terms are general, and there are rules for dealing with the decorations: identities and projections are always pure, and the compositions or tuples of pure terms are pure.…”

Section: Some Diagrammatic Logicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Diagrammatic logic applied to a parameterisation process

Domínguez¹,

Duval²

2010

Math. Struct. Comp. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an abstract definition of a class of logics, called diagrammatic logics, together with a definition of morphisms and 2-morphisms between them. The definition of the 2-category of diagrammatic logics relies on category theory, mainly on adjunction, categories of fractions and limit sketches. This framework is applied to the formalisation of a parameterisation process. This process, which consists of adding a formal parameter to some operations in a given specification, is presented as a morphism of logics. Then the parameter passing process for recovering a model of the given specification from a model of the parameterised specification and an actual parameter is shown to be a 2-morphism of logics.Downloaded640 types, like the type of integers, while the second layer deals with algebraic structures, like the structure of groups, which are implemented using the abstract data types in the first layer. In addition, this analysis made it clear that in EAT, groups (for instance) are not implemented individually, but are implemented through parameterised families of groups. Lambán et al. (2003) defined an operation called the imp construction -it was given this name because of its role in the implementation process in the system EAT. In fact, the imp construction is a parameterisation process: starting from a specification Σ in which some operations are labelled as 'pure ' (Domínguez et al. 2006), the imp construction builds a new specification Σ A with a distinguished sort A added to the domain of each non-pure operation. Then the parameter passing process derives an implementation of Σ from each implementation of Σ A and each value in the interpretation of A. Moreover, the exact parameterisation property was proved in Lambán et al. (2003): the implementations of EAT algebraic structures are as general as possible in the sense that they are ingredients of terminal objects in some categories of models. The parameter set in the Kenzo and EAT systems is encoded by means of a record of Common Lisp functions, which has a field for each operation in the algebraic structure to be implemented. The pure terms correspond to functions, which can be obtained from the fixed data and do not require any explicit storage, so each particular instance of the record gives rise to an algebraic structure; more details can be found in Lambán et al. (2003). Lambán et al. (2003) then reinterpreted these results for the EAT algebraic structures in terms of object-oriented techniques, like hidden algebras (Goguen and Malcolm 2000) or coalgebras (Rutten 2000). Domínguez et al. (2007) then extended these results in the algebraic framework of institutions (Goguen and Burstall 1984): the imp construction is represented through institution encodings in the sense of Tarlecki (2000). Goguen and Roşu (2002) provided a survey of the different notions of morphisms between institutions,where institution encodings are called forward institution morphisms. In fact, institution encodings are not that common in institution theories, where ...

show abstract