Advertisement

Engineering the SDL Formal Language Definition

  • Andreas Prinz
  • Martin v. Löwis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2884)

Abstract

With the latest revision of the ITU-T Specification and Description Language (SDL-2000), a formal language definition based on the concept of Abstract State Machines (ASMs) became integral part of the standard. Together with the formal definition, we have developed software tools that allow executing the formal language definition on a computer. In doing so, we found that tools greatly help to eliminate numerous errors from the formal definition, which likely would have not been found without tools.

Keywords

Transformation Rule Formal Semantic Abstract Syntax Static Semantic Dynamic Semantic 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Prinz, A.: Formal Semantics for SDL. Definition and Implementation. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Specification and Description Language (SDL). ITU-T Recommendation Z.100. Geneva (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Telecommunication Union (ITU). SDL Formal Definition. ITU-T Recommendation Z.100.F, Geneva (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Gurevich, Y.: Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide. In: Börger, E. (ed.) Specification and Validation Methods, pp. 9–36. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eschbach, R., Glässer, U., Gotzhein, R., von Löwis, M., Prinz, A.: Formal Definition of SDL-2000: Compiling and Running SDL Specifications as ASM Models. Journal of Universal Computer Science 7(11), 1025–1050 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Löwis, M.V., Piefel, M.: The Term Processor Kimwitu++. In: Callaos, N., Leng, T., Sanchez, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, Orlando (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft® Office 2000 Resource Kit. Microsoft Press, Redmond (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Archer, T.: Inside C#. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Eijk, P.: Tools for LOTOS, a Lotosphere overview. In: Tutorial proceedings of 11th Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Sydney (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kastens, U.: Executable Specifications for Language Implementation. In: Penjam, J., Bruynooghe, M. (eds.) PLILP 1993. LNCS, vol. 714, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gurevich, Y., Huggins, J.K.: The Semantics of the C Programming Language. In: Martini, S., Börger, E., Kleine Büning, H., Jäger, G., Richter, M.M. (eds.) CSL 1992. LNCS, vol. 702. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallace, C.: The Semantics of the C++ Programming Language. In: Börger, E. (ed.) Specification and Validation Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prinz, A., Löwis, M.V.: Generating A Compiler for SDL From The Formal Language Definition. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2708. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Prinz
    • 1
  • Martin v. Löwis
    • 2
  1. 1.DResearch Digital Media Systems GmbHBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Softwaresystemtechnik GmbHPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations