轻量级OCL: holl中OCL 2.3语义一致性的研究

Achim D. Brucker, B. Wolff
{"title":"轻量级OCL: holl中OCL 2.3语义一致性的研究","authors":"Achim D. Brucker, B. Wolff","doi":"10.1145/2428516.2428520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At its origins, OCL was conceived as a strict semantics for undefinedness, with the exception of the logical connectives of type Boolean that constitute a three-valued propositional logic. Recent versions of the OCL standard added a second exception element, which, similar to the null references in programming languages, is given a non-strict semantics.\n In this paper, we report on our results in formalizing the core of OCL in higher-order logic (HOL). This formalization revealed several inconsistencies and contradictions in the current version of the OCL standard. These inconsistencies and contradictions are reflected in the challenge to define and implement OCL tools (e. g., interpreters, code-generators, or theorem provers) in a uniform manner.","PeriodicalId":163118,"journal":{"name":"Object Constraint Language","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Featherweight OCL: a study for the consistent semantics of OCL 2.3 in HOL\",\"authors\":\"Achim D. Brucker, B. Wolff\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2428516.2428520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At its origins, OCL was conceived as a strict semantics for undefinedness, with the exception of the logical connectives of type Boolean that constitute a three-valued propositional logic. Recent versions of the OCL standard added a second exception element, which, similar to the null references in programming languages, is given a non-strict semantics.\\n In this paper, we report on our results in formalizing the core of OCL in higher-order logic (HOL). This formalization revealed several inconsistencies and contradictions in the current version of the OCL standard. These inconsistencies and contradictions are reflected in the challenge to define and implement OCL tools (e. g., interpreters, code-generators, or theorem provers) in a uniform manner.\",\"PeriodicalId\":163118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Object Constraint Language\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Object Constraint Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2428516.2428520\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Object Constraint Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2428516.2428520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

最初,OCL被认为是一种严格的非定义语义,除了构成三值命题逻辑的布尔类型的逻辑连接词。最近版本的OCL标准添加了第二个异常元素,它类似于编程语言中的null引用,具有非严格语义。在本文中,我们报告了我们在高阶逻辑(HOL)中形式化OCL核心的结果。这种形式化揭示了OCL标准当前版本中的一些不一致和矛盾之处。这些不一致和矛盾反映在以统一的方式定义和实现OCL工具(例如,解释器、代码生成器或定理证明器)的挑战中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Featherweight OCL: a study for the consistent semantics of OCL 2.3 in HOL
At its origins, OCL was conceived as a strict semantics for undefinedness, with the exception of the logical connectives of type Boolean that constitute a three-valued propositional logic. Recent versions of the OCL standard added a second exception element, which, similar to the null references in programming languages, is given a non-strict semantics. In this paper, we report on our results in formalizing the core of OCL in higher-order logic (HOL). This formalization revealed several inconsistencies and contradictions in the current version of the OCL standard. These inconsistencies and contradictions are reflected in the challenge to define and implement OCL tools (e. g., interpreters, code-generators, or theorem provers) in a uniform manner.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信