Object-oriented system specification using defaults

  • Udo W. Lipeck
  • Stefan Brass
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 777)


This paper aims at integrating techniques of non-monotonic reasoning about updates and of object-oriented specification of information systems. We present how to utilize defaults in specifications of dynamic system behaviour. Thus overridable rules may be used in specifications which deal not only with state structures, but also with state transitions and sequences. Systems are viewed as societies of interacting objects.

The underlying object specification logic is based on temporal logic and allows to refer to the enabling and occurrence of actions. It is extended with prioritized defaults and module composition. By discussing a variety of examples, we study which default patterns should be used for typical problems of behavioural specification.


Temporal Logic Variable Assignment Default Logic Nonmonotonic Reasoning Intended Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BL89]
    S. Brass, U. W. Lipeck: Specifying closed world assumptions for logic databases. In J. Demetrovics, B. Thalheim (eds.), 2nd Symp. on Mathetmatical Fundamentals of Database Systems (MFDBS'89), 68–84, LNCS 364, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [BL91]
    S. Brass, U. W. Lipeck: Semantics of inheritance in logical object specifications. In C. Delobel, M. Kifer, Y. Masunaga (eds.), Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, 2nd Int. Conf. (DOOD'91), 411–430, LNCS 566, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [BL93]
    S. Brass, U. W. Lipeck: Bottom-up query evaluation with partially ordered defaults. In S. Ceri, K. Tanaka, S. Tsur (eds.), Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, 3rd Int. Conf. (DOOD'93), 252–266, LNCS 760, Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [Bra93a]
    S. Brass: Deduction with supernormal defaults. In G. Brewka, K. P. Jantke, P. H. Schmitt (eds.), Nonmonotonic and Inductive Logics, 2nd Int. Workshop (NIL'91), 153–174, LNAI 659, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [Bra93b]
    S. Brass: On the semantics of supernormal defaults. In R. Bajcsy (ed.), Proc. of the 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93), Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [Bre91]
    G. Brewka: Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [BRL91]
    S. Brass, M. Ryan, U. W. Lipeck: Hierarchical defaults in specifications. In G. Saake, A. Sernadas (eds.), Information Systems — Correctness and Reusability, Workshop IS-CORE '91, 179–201, Informatik-Bericht 91-03, TU Braunschweig, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [Dix92]
    J. Dix: Default theories of Poole-type and a method for constructing cumulative versions of default logic. In B. Neumann (ed.), Proc. of the 10th Europ. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 92), 289–293, John Wiley & Sons, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [DJ91]
    J. P. Delgrande, W. K. Jackson: Default logic revisited. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, E. Sandewall (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2nd Int. Conf. (KR'91), 118–127, Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [EMR85]
    D. W. Etherington, R. E. Mercer, R. Reiter: On the adequacy of predicate circumscription for closed-world reasoning. Computational Intelligence 1 (1985), 11–15.Google Scholar
  11. [FM91]
    J. Fiadeiro, T. Maibaum: Towards object calculi. In G. Saake, A. Sernadas (eds.), Information Systems — Correctness and Reusability, Workshop ISCORE '91, 129–178, Informatik-Bericht 91-03, TU Braunschweig, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [HM87]
    S. Hanks, D. McDermott: Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence 33 (1987), 379–412.Google Scholar
  13. [Poo88]
    D. Poole: A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36 (1988), 27–47.Google Scholar
  14. [Rei80]
    R. Reiter: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intelligence 13 (1980), 81–132.Google Scholar
  15. [Rei92]
    R. Reiter: On formalizing database updates — preliminary report. In A. Pirotte, C. Delobel, G. Gottlob (eds.), Advances in Database Technology — EDBT'92, 3rd Int. Conf., 10–20, LNCS 580, Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [Rya91]
    M. Ryan: Defaults and revision in structured theories. In Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'91), 362–373, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [SS93]
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas. Denotational semantics of object specification within an arbitrary temporal logic institution. In U. W. Lipeck, G. Koschorreck (eds.), Information Systems — Correctness and Reusability, Workshop ISCORE '93, 61–89, Informatik-Bericht 93-01, Univ. Hannover, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [SSC92]
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, J. F. Costa: Object specification logic. Technical report, INESC, Lisbon, June 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Udo W. Lipeck
    • 1
  • Stefan Brass
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations