Skip to main content

A semantic basis for logic-independent transformation

  • Contributed Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 785))

Abstract

This paper is based on previous work by Harper, Sannella and Tarlecki who suggest a framework for giving semantic interpretations to logic representations in the LF logical framework. Besides LF, there are also other approaches that tackle the representation of logics in a meta-logic. The logic-independent aspect in the formal development of software has been investigated intensively based on abstract model theory. Less attention is paid to the proof system aspect. In this paper we treat logic-independence by considering the consequence relation that models a proof system for a logic. The existing work is generalized here to the consideration of any logic as a meta-logic, since there may be meta-logics other than LF that are more suitable and convenient for developing “object” logical systems. This generalized framework is then used for building logic-independent specifications and developments. The setting can eventually be considered as a firm semantic basis for developing logic-independent transformations.

This work is partially supported by the German Ministry of Research and Technology (BMFT) as part of the project “KORSO — Korrekte Software”

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Arbib, E. Manes. Arrows, Structures, and Functors-the Categorical Imperative. New York, London: Academic Press 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Ehrig, B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification I: Equations and Initial Semantics. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science New York: Springer (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Ehrig, B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification II. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science New York: Springer (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Gardner. Representing Logics in Type Theory. Phd Thesis, LFCS Report ECS-LFCS-92-227, Dept. of Computer Science, Uni. of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.A. Goguen, R.M. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for Specification and Programming. J. ACM, vol. 39, No. 1, pp 95–146 (Jan. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Harper, F. Honsell, G. Plotkin. A Framework for Defining Logics. Proc. 2nd IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, Conell, pp 194–204 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Harper, D. Sannella, A. Tarlecki. Structure and Representation in LF. LFCS Report ECS-LFCS-89-75, Dept. of Computer Science, Uni. of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Harper, D. Sannella, A. Tarlecki. Logic Representation in LF. Proc. 3nd Summer Conference in Category Theory and Computer Science, LNCS 389, pp 250–272 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Krieg-Brückner, D. Sannella. Structuring Specifications in-the-Large and in-the-Small: Higher-Order Functions, Dependent Types and Inheritance in SPECTRAL. Proc. TAPSOFT 91, LNCS 582(1991).

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. Krieg-Brückner, E. Karlsen, J. Liu, O. Traynor. The PROSPECTRA Methodology and System: Uniform Transformational (Meta-) Development. VDM '91: Formal Software Development Methods, S. Prchn W.J. Toctenel (eds.), LNCS 552, pp 362–397.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. Hoffmann, B. Krieg-Brückner (eds.): PROgram development by SPECification and TRAnsformation: Methodology, Language Family, System. LNCS 680 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Lambek, P.J. Scott. Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics 7, Cambridge University Press 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Z. Luo. An Extended Calculus of Constructions. Phd Thesis, LFCS Report ECS-LFCS-90-118, Dept. of Computer Science, Uni. of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Meseguer. General Logics, Proc. of the Logic Colloquium '87, H. D. Ebbinghaus et al. (eds.), North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  15. F. Pfenning. Logic programming in the LF logical framework. In G. Huet and G. Plotkin (eds.): Logical Frameworks. Cambridge University Press 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Sannella, S. Sokolowski, A. Tarlecki. Toward formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: parameterization revisited. Report 6/90, Informatik, Universität Bremen (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Sannella, A. Tarlecki. Towards formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: implementations revisited. In H. Ehrig et al.(eds.): TAPSOFT 87 LNCS 249 pp 96–110 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Sannella, M. Wirsing. A kernel language for algebraic specifications and implementations LNCS 158, pp 413–427 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  19. L. Paulson. The foundations of a generic theorem prover. Technical Report 130, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  20. L. Paulson. Logics and Computation: interactive proof with Cambridge LCF. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 2, Cambridge University Press 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Wirsing. Structured Algebraic Specifications: a kernel language. TCS 42, pp 123–249 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Hartmut Ehrig Fernando Orejas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Liu, J. (1994). A semantic basis for logic-independent transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Orejas, F. (eds) Recent Trends in Data Type Specification. ADT COMPASS 1992 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 785. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57867-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57867-6_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-57867-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48361-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics