Geometrization for Interactive Software Development

  • Kieran Clenaghan
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)


This paper introduces an approach to making computable algebraic specifications interactive. We present the structure of a specification-independent sequential machine, and examine what is needed to equip a specification so that it can be used interactively on this machine. This machine serves as our operating system and user-interface management system for specification use. An objective is to keep this machine as simple as possible, so that the burden of providing sophistication rests with the specification being used and the way it is equipped for use. We are particularly interested in how modularity in specifications can induce a modular approach to specifying interaction.


Abstract Syntax Geometor Transformer Forgetful Functor Machine Structure Faithfulness Constraint 
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. [1]
    Joseph A. Goguen. Parameterised Programming IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng., Vol. Se-10, No. 5, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Weber and H. Ehrig. Specification of Modular Systems IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., SE-12, 7, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.A. Goguen and R.M. Burstall. Introducing Institutions. LNCS 164, pp. 221–256, 1984.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1. Springer Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Meseguer and J.A. Goguen. Initiality, Induction and Computability. In Algebraic Methods in Semantics, eds. M. Nivat, & J.C. Reynolds, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. On Observational Equivalence and Algebraic Specification.. JCSS, vol. 34, pp 150–178, 1987.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Thomas W. Reps and Tim Teitelbaum. The Synthesizer Generator: A System for Constructing Language-Based Editors. Springer-Verlag 1989.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Voisin. CIGALE: A Tool for Interactive Grammar Construction and Expression Parsing. Sci. Comp. Prog., Vol. 7, pp 61–86, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kenneth J. Supowit and Edward M.Reingold. The Complexity of Drawing Trees Nicely. Acta Informatica, Vol. 18, pp 377–392, 1983.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    W. Leier. Constraint Programming Languages: Their Specification and Generation. Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M.P. Atkinson, O.P. Buneman, and R.Morrison. Data Types and Persistence. Springer Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    K. Arya. A Functional Approach to Animation. Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Helm and K. Marriott. Declarative Graphics. LNCS 225, pp 513–527, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Lucas and S. Zilles. Graphics in an Applicative Context.. IBM Research Report, San Jose, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    G.E. Pfaff (Ed). User Interface Management Systems. Springer Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Special issue of ACM TOGS on User Interface Management Systems. Vol. 5, 3, 1986. [17] B. Sufrin. Formal Specification of a Display-Oriented Editor. Sci. Comp. Prog. 1, 3, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    B. Sufrin. Formal Specification of a Display-Oriented Editor. Sci. Comp. Prog. 1, 3, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    H. Ehrig, W. Fey, and H. Hansen. Towards Abstract User Interfaces For Formal System Specifications. In H-J. Kreowksi (Ed.) Recent Trends in Data Type Specifications, Springer-Verlag, IFB 116, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    H. Alexander. ECS- A Technique for the Formal Specification and Rapid Prototyping of Human-Computer Interaction. In People and Computers: Designing for Usability, Eds. M.D. Harrison and A.F. Monk, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S.O. Anderson. Proving Properties of Interactive Systems. In People and Computers: Designing for Usability, Eds. M.D. Harrison and A.F. Monk, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    L. Marshall. A Formal Description Method for User Interfaces. Ph.D. Thesis (1986) and Tech. Rep. UMCS–87–1–2, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    A.J. Dix, M.D. Harrison, C. Runciman, and H.W. Thimbleby. Interaction models and the principled design of interactive systems. European Software Engineering Conference, Strasbourg, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Bidoit & C. Choppy. ASSPEGIQUE; An Integrated Environment for Algebraic Specifications. LNCS 185, pp 246–260, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. Broy, A. Geser and H. Hussman. Towards Advanced Programming Environments Based on Algebraic Concepts. LNCS 244, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Dick. ERIL- Equational Reasoning, an Interactive Laboratory. Res. Report, Rutherford Labs, Didcot, Eng., 1986.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    H. Hansen. The ACT-System. Experiences and Future Enhancements - (Draft). Report, Technische Universitat Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Kneuper. Symbolic Execution of Specifications: User Interface and Scenarios. Tech. Report, UMCS–87–12–6, University of Manchester, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J.A. Goguen and T. Winkler. OBJ3 User’s Manual. SRI, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Specifications in an Arbitrary Institution. Information and Computation, 76, pp 165–210, 1988.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Towards Formal Development of Programs from Algebraic Specifications: implementations revisted. Acta Informatica, 25, pp 233–281, 1988CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    H. Ehrig, W. Fey, H. Hansen, M. Lowe, and F. Parisi-Presicce. Algebraic Theory of Modular Program Development. Report 87–06, Technische Universitat Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Extended ML: an institution - independent framework for formal program development. Res. Report ECS-LFCS-86–16, University of Edinburgh, 1986.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    G.Huet. Confluent Reductions: Abstract Properties and Applications to Term Rewriting Systems. JACM 27, 4, pp 797–821, 1980.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    R. Burstall and P. Landin. Programs and their proofs: an algebraic approach. Machine Intelligence 4, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kieran Clenaghan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations