Abstract
Heterogeneous specification becomes more and more important because complex systems are often specified using multiple viewpoints, involving multiple formalisms (see Fig. 1). Moreover, a formal software development process may lead to a change of formalism during the development.
Some of the current heterogeneous approaches deliberately stay informal, like UML. Current formal integration approaches have the drawback that they are uni-lateral in the sense that typically there is one logic (and one theorem prover) which serves as the central integration device, even if this central logic may not be needed or desired in particular applications.
By contrast, the heterogeneous tool set is a both flexible,multi-lateral and formal (i.e. based on a mathematical semantics) integration tool, providing parsing, static analysis and proof management for heterogeneous multi-logic specifications by combining various tools for individual specification languages. Unlike other tools, it treats logic translations (e.g. codings between logics) as first-class citizens. The architecture of the heterogeneous tool set is shown in Fig. 2. In the sequel, we will explain the details of this figure.
This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft unders grants KR 1191/5-2 and KR 1191/7-2 and in the project I4-SPIN in the SFB/TR8 “Spatial Cognition”. We thank Stefan Wölfl for providing the first heterogeneous verification example.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mosses, P.D. (ed.): CASL Reference Manual. LNCS, vol. 2960. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 39, 95–146 (1992)
Mossakowski, T., Lüttich, K.: Reasoning Support for Casl with Automated Theorem Proving Systems. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Schobbens, P.-Y. (eds.) WADT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4409, pp. 74–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Mossakowski, T.: Heterogeneous specification and the heterogeneous tool set. Habilitation thesis, University of Bremen (2005)
Mossakowski, T., Autexier, S., Hutter, D.: Development graphs – proof management for structured specifications. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 67(1-2), 114–145 (2006)
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL — A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Peyton-Jones, S. (ed.): Haskell 98 Language and Libraries — The Revised Report. Cambridge (2003), also: J. Funct. Programming 13 (2003)
Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: The design and implementation of VAMPIRE. AI Communications 15(2-3), 91–110 (2002)
Weidenbach, C., et al.: SPASS version 2. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 275–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Zimmer, J., Autexier, S.: The MathServe System for Semantic Web Reasoning Services. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., Lüttich, K. (2007). The Heterogeneous Tool Set, Hets . In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4424. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71209-1_40
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71209-1_40
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71208-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71209-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)