Declarative specifications | The Knowledge Engineering Review | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Deriving formal specifications from informal requirements is extremely difficult since one has to overcome the conceptual gap between an application domain and the domain of formal specification methods. To reduce this gap we introduce application-specific specification languages, i.e., graphical and textual notations that can be unambiguously mapped to formal specifications in a logic language. We describe a number of realised approaches based on this idea, and evaluate them with respect to their domain specificity vs. generality.

References

Börger, E and Rosenzweig, D, 1994. “A mathematical definition of full Prolog” Science of Computer Programming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bundy, A, Byrd, L, Luger, G, Mellish, C and Milne, R, 1979. “Solving mechanics problems using meta-level inference” In Buchanan, BG (ed), Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI).Google Scholar

Fromherz, MPJ, 1993. “A methodology for executable specifications-combining logic programming, object-orientation and multiple views” PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Fuchs, NE and Fromherz, MPJ, 1994. “Transformational development of logic programs from executable specifications-schema-based visual and textual composition of logic programs” In Beckstein, C and Geske, U (eds), Entwicklung, Test und Wartung deklarativer KI-Programme GMD Studien Nr. 238, Gesellschaft für Informatik und Datenverarbeitung, pp 13–28.Google Scholar

Fuchs, NE and Schwitter, R, 1996. “Attempto Controlled English (ACE)” CLAW 96, First International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications University of Leuven, Belgium, 03.Google Scholar

Hesketh, J, Robertson, D, Fuchs, N and Bundy, A, 1996. “Automating reasoning support for design” Research paper, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar

Kowalski, RA, 1985. The Relation Between Logic Programming and Logic Specification Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Kramer, B and Mylopoulos, J, 1992. “Knowledge representation” In Shapiro, SC (ed) Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence Wiley.Google Scholar

Lloyd, J, 1994. “Practical advantages of declarative programming” Invited lecture, GULP-PRODE '94, Peñiscola, Spain.Google Scholar

Pulman, S and Rayner, M, 1994. “Computer Processable Controlled Language” SRI International Cambridge Computer Science Research Centre, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Luqi, BR, 1993. “Process knowledge based rapid prototyping for requirements engineering” Proceedings IEEE Symposium on Requirements Engineering San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Robertson, D, Bundy, A, Muetzelfeldt, R, Haggith, M and Uschold, M, 1991. Eco-Logic: Logic-Based Approaches to Ecological Modelling MIT Press (Logic Programming Series).Google Scholar

Robertson, D, 1996. “Distributed specification” Proceedings 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96) Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar

Robertson, D and Hesketh, J, 1994. “Making specification design more accountable” Proceedings ONR/ARPA/AFOSR/ARO/NSF Workshop on Increasing the Practical Impact of Formal Methods Monterey, CA.Google Scholar

Schwitter, R and Fuchs, NE, 1996. “Attempto—from specifications in controlled natural language towards executable specifications” GI EMISA Workshop Natürlichsprachlicher Entwurf von Informationssystemen, Tutzing.Google Scholar

Schwitter, R and Fuchs, NE, 1996. “Attempto Controlled English (ACE)—a seemingly informal bridgehead in formal territory” Extended abstract. In Fuchs, NE and Geske, U (eds) Proceedings Poster Session, JICSLP '96, Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming Bad Honnef, Germany.Google Scholar

Sterling, L, 1992. “A role for Prolog in software engineering” Computer Science Colloquium Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar