DOCSLIB.ORG

Deep, Seamless, Multi-Format, Multi-Notation Definition and Use of Domain-Specific Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deep, Seamless, Multi-Format, Multi-Notation Definition and Use of Domain-Specific Languages Deep, Seamless, Multi-format, Multi-notation Definition and Use of Domain-specific Languages Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften der Universität Mannheim vorgelegt von Diplom-Wirtschaftsinformatiker Ralph Gerbig aus Worms Mannheim, 2017 Dekan: Professor Dr. Heinz Jürgen Müller, Unversität Mannheim Referent: Professor Dr. Colin Atkinson, Unversität Mannheim Korreferent: Professor Dr. Juan de Lara, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 24. Februar 2017 To Valerie. Acknowledgments I thank Colin Atkinson for the supervision and the support he provided during the last six exciting years. We had a lot of open minded and fruitful discussi- ons and he gave invaluable guidance and feedback on this dissertation and the Melanee tool. I also thank Juan de Lara, my second supervisor, for his input to this dis- sertation and the joint research. Especially, I want to thank him for hosting one of my students at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the support he gave to this student during his master thesis. I thank all the students who contributed towards the success of this dis- sertation in the form of seminars and bachelor/master theses and as student assistants. Especially, I want to thank Nicole Wesemeyer, Katharina Markert, Daniel Gritzner and Dominik Kantner for their outstanding contributions to the Melanee tool. I thank Bastian Kennel, for supervising my diploma (cf. master) thesis on the topic of deep modeling. This built the foundation for all following research leading to the Melanee tool as it is today and the approach described in the dissertation. I thank Mathias Fritzsche for the opportunity to join him for an internship at SAP Research in Belfast where I had my first taste of research, model-driven development and Eclipse Plug-in development. Finally, a special thanks goes to my beautiful wife Valerie for all the sacri- fices she made and her support while I worked on this dissertation. Abstract Domain-specific modeling has gained increased attention in industry and aca- demia in recent years leading to the emergence of numerous highly specialized, domain-specific modeling approaches and tools. However, the tools available today focus on one specific aspect of domain-specific modeling and tend to be isolated and difficult to integrate with each other. For instance, some tools focus exclusively on graphical, diagrammatic languages, while others focus on textual languages. The problems caused by this heterogeneous tool landscape become most evident when attempting to use multiple formats together. A first step towards integrating different modeling formats within one single environment has been taken by the latest projective modeling environments which support the embedding of non-textual formats (e.g. tables) into textual model editors. However, in these modeling environments the textual format dominates the embedded formats. Moreover, all of these tools are based on two-level modeling technologies which are limited to one, hard-wired meta- model describing the modeling language and one instance level describing the user model expressed in terms of the language. In addition to the metamodel, the concrete syntax features offered by today’s modeling tools are typically hardwired as well. When multiple notations are available, modelers usually have to decide for one notation before starting. To view the model in an alternative notation, the model has to be opened in a second editor. The approach presented in this thesis for the deep, seamless, multi-format, multi-notation definition and use of domain-specific languages overcomes the aforementioned weaknesses. First, it treats all formats equally, no matter whether text, diagram or some other format. This allows different formats to be used side-by-side, as desired, without influencing one another negatively. Second, it allows a given format to be visualized in multiple notations in one editor, side-by-side. Third, the inherently deep architecture allows deep visualizations to be defined spanning as many classification levels as needed for language definition and use. Fourth, language definitions and visualizations are soft, like language applications, and can be changed at any time by modelers. The approach has been validated by means of an Eclipse EMF-based prototype implementation, called Melanee, and applied to a running example motivated by the ArchiMate Enterprise Architecture Modeling standard. Zusammenfassung Domänenspezifische Modellierung hat in letzter Zeit hohe Aufmerksamkeit von Industrie und Forschung bekommen. Dies führte zur Entwicklung von vielen spezialisierten domänenspezifischen Modellierungswerkzeugen und Ansätzen. Diese Werkzeuge fokussieren sich jedoch nur auf einzelne Aspekte der domä- nenspezifischen Modellierung. Weiter sind diese isoliert und teils schwer mitein- ander integrierbar, da sich beispielsweise manche Werkzeuge nur auf grafische Modellierung und andere Werkzeuge auf textuelle Modellierung fokussieren. Beim Versuch die verschiedenen Formate zu kombinieren werden die Proble- me, die durch diese heterogene Werkzeuglandschaft entstehen, sichtbar. Einen ersten Schritt zur Integration verschiedener Formate innerhalb ei- nes Editors haben die neuesten projektionalen Modellierungsumgebungen un- ternommen. Diese unterstützen das Einbetten von nicht textuellen Formaten (z.B. Tabellen) in textuelle Editoren. Jedoch dominiert das textuelle Format hierbei stark. Auch basieren all diese Werkzeuge auf einer zwei-level Architek- tur. Diese Architektur ist beschränkt auf ein statisches Metamodell, welches die Modellierungssprache beschreibt, und auf ein Instanzmodell, welches das Benutzermodel mit Konzepten des Metamodells ausdrückt. Nicht nur das Me- tamodell, sondern auch die Funktionalitäten im Bereich der konkreten Syntax sind in den bereitgestellten Werkzeugen fest verankert. Wenn mehrere Nota- tionen verfügbar sind muss sich der Benutzer in der Regel für eine von diesen Notationen vor dem Modellieren entscheiden. Um eine alternative Notation zu nutzen muss er das bearbeitete Modell in einem zweiten Editor öffnen. Der in dieser Arbeit präsentierte deep, seamless, multi-format, multi-no- tation definition and use of domain-specific languages Ansatz überwindet die beschriebenen Schwächen. Dieser behandelt alle Formate gleichwertig egal ob Text, Diagramm etc. Hierbei können die verschiedenen Formate parallel be- nutzt werden ohne sich negativ zu beeinflussen. Auch können die einzelnen Notationen innerhalb eines Formats nebeneinander benutzt werden. Durch die durchgängig tiefe Architektur können Sprachen zusammen mit ihrer konkreten Syntax über mehrere Level hinweg definiert werden. Da Sprachdefinition und Visualisierung soft sind können Benutzer diese zu jeder Zeit ändern. Der An- satz wird durch einen EMF-basierten Prototypen, Melanee, demonstriert und auf ein laufendes Beispiel welches sich an ArchiMate orientiert angewandt. Contents Glossary vii List of Figures ix List of Tables xiii List of Algorithms xv 1 Introduction1 1.1 Problem Fields of Language Engineering.............1 1.2 Requirements for Language Workbenches............6 1.3 Contribution............................9 1.4 Research Communication.....................9 1.5 Outline............................... 10 2 Foundations 13 2.1 Language Engineering....................... 13 2.2 Model-driven Language Engineering............... 14 2.3 Deep Modeling........................... 18 3 User-defined Visualization of Deep Models 23 3.1 Language Visualization for Deep Models............. 24 3.2 Deep Visualization......................... 25 3.3 Multi-format Modeling....................... 31 3.4 Multi-notation Modeling...................... 36 3.5 Aspect-oriented Visualization................... 41 i 3.6 Context-sensitive Visualization.................. 48 4 The Diagrammatic Format 51 4.1 Diagrammatic Predefined Visualization............. 52 4.2 Diagrammatic User-defined Visualization............ 54 4.2.1 Diagrammatic Visualizer Metamodel Example..... 59 4.3 Diagrammatic Weaving Model.................. 60 4.3.1 Diagrammatic Weaving Model Example......... 62 5 The Textual Format 65 5.1 Textual Editing Paradigms.................... 66 5.1.1 Free-text Model Editing.................. 66 5.1.2 Projectional Editing.................... 69 5.2 Textual Predefined Language................... 71 5.3 Textual User-defined Language.................. 74 5.3.1 Textual Visualizer Metamodel Example......... 76 5.4 Textual Weaving Model...................... 77 5.4.1 Textual Weaving Model Operations........... 78 5.4.2 Textual Weaving Model Example............. 82 6 The Tabular Format 85 6.1 Tabular Predefined Language................... 85 6.2 Tabular User-defined Language.................. 89 6.2.1 Tabular Visualizer Metamodel Example......... 95 6.3 Tabular Weaving Model...................... 97 6.3.1 Tabular Weaving Model Example............. 98 7 The Form-based Format 101 7.1 Form-based Predefined Language................. 101 7.2 Form-based User-defined Language................ 104 7.2.1 Form-based Visualizer Metamodel Example....... 108 7.3 Form-based Weaving Model.................... 109 7.3.1 Form-based Weaving Model Example.......... 110 8 Deep Constraint Language for Deep Visualization 113 8.1 Application Modes of Constraints in Deep Models....... 113 8.2 Support of OCA-based Deep Modeling.............. 116 8.3 Definition of Constraints at Intermediate Levels......... 118 8.4 A Deep Constraint Language Supporting Deep Visualization. 121 8.4.1 Constraint Application
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modeling for Rapid Systems Prototyping: Hospital Situational Awareness System Design †
    systems Article Modeling for Rapid Systems Prototyping: Hospital Situational Awareness System Design † Avi Shaked Israel Aerospace Industries ELTA Systems, Ashdod 7710202, Israel; [email protected] † This paper includes a significant elaboration of the work “Shaked, A. On the Road to Hospital Digital Transformation: Using Conceptual Modeling to Express Domain Ontology”. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020), Online, 2–4 November 2020. Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic caught hospitals unprepared. The need to treat patients remotely and with limited resources led hospitals to identify a gap in their operational situational awareness. During the pandemic, Israeli Aerospace Industries helped hospitals to address the gap by designing a system to support their effective operation, management and decision making. In this paper, we report on the development of a functional, working prototype of the system using model-based engineering approach and tools. Our approach relies on domain-specific modeling, incorporating metamodeling and domain-specific representations based on the problem domain’s ontology. The tools practiced are those embedded into the Eclipse Modeling Framework—specifically, Ecore Tools and Sirius. While these technological tools are typically used to create dedicated, engineering-related modeling tools, in this work, we use them to create a functional system prototype. We discuss the advantages of our approach as well as the challenges with respect to the existing tools and their underlying technology. Based on the reported experience, we encourage practitioners to adopt model-based engineering as an effective way to develop systems. Furthermore, we call researchers and tool developers to improve the state-of-the-art as well as the existing implementations of pertinent tools to support model-based rapid prototyping.
    [Show full text]
  • The Metamathematics of Putnam's Model-Theoretic Arguments
    The Metamathematics of Putnam's Model-Theoretic Arguments Tim Button Abstract. Putnam famously attempted to use model theory to draw metaphysical conclusions. His Skolemisation argument sought to show metaphysical realists that their favourite theories have countable models. His permutation argument sought to show that they have permuted mod- els. His constructivisation argument sought to show that any empirical evidence is compatible with the Axiom of Constructibility. Here, I exam- ine the metamathematics of all three model-theoretic arguments, and I argue against Bays (2001, 2007) that Putnam is largely immune to meta- mathematical challenges. Copyright notice. This paper is due to appear in Erkenntnis. This is a pre-print, and may be subject to minor changes. The authoritative version should be obtained from Erkenntnis, once it has been published. Hilary Putnam famously attempted to use model theory to draw metaphys- ical conclusions. Specifically, he attacked metaphysical realism, a position characterised by the following credo: [T]he world consists of a fixed totality of mind-independent objects. (Putnam 1981, p. 49; cf. 1978, p. 125). Truth involves some sort of correspondence relation between words or thought-signs and external things and sets of things. (1981, p. 49; cf. 1989, p. 214) [W]hat is epistemically most justifiable to believe may nonetheless be false. (1980, p. 473; cf. 1978, p. 125) To sum up these claims, Putnam characterised metaphysical realism as an \externalist perspective" whose \favorite point of view is a God's Eye point of view" (1981, p. 49). Putnam sought to show that this externalist perspective is deeply untenable. To this end, he treated correspondence in terms of model-theoretic satisfaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Xtext / Sirius - Integration the Main Use-Cases
    Xtext / Sirius - Integration The Main Use-Cases White Paper December 2017 SUMMARY Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Let’s start 2 Chapter 2.1 What modeling is about? 2 Chapter 2.2 Benefits of graphical modeling 3 Chapter 2.3 Benefits of textual modeling 5 Chapter 3 What is Xtext? 6 Chapter 4 What is Sirius? 8 Chapter 5 Xtext & Sirius in action 10 Chapter 5.1 Case 1: Editing the same models both graphically and textually 10 Chapter 5.2 Case 2: Embedding an Xtext Editor into Sirius 15 Chapter 6 How may we help you? 18 Introduction Introduction You are going to create a domain-specific modeling tool and you wonder how users will edit and visualize the models: textually with a dedicated syntax and a rich textual editor ? or graphically with diagrams drawn with a palette and smart tools? Both approaches are interesting and can be used complementary: While text is able to carry more detailed information, a diagram highlights the relationship between elements much better. In the end, a good tool should combine both, and use each notation where it suits best. In this white paper, we will explain the benefits of each approach. Then we will present Eclipse Xtext and Eclipse Sirius, two open-source frameworks for the development of textual and graphical model editors. And finally, we will detailed two use-cases where these two technologies can be integrated in the same modeling workbench. 1 Let’s start Let’s start What modeling is about? Before presenting the graphical and textual modeling approaches, it is important to briefly clarify what we mean by modeling.
    [Show full text]
  • Church's Thesis As an Empirical Hypothesis
    Pobrane z czasopisma Annales AI- Informatica http://ai.annales.umcs.pl Data: 27/02/2019 11:52:41 Annales UMCS Annales UMCS Informatica AI 3 (2005) 119-130 Informatica Lublin-Polonia Sectio AI http://www.annales.umcs.lublin.pl/ Church’s thesis as an empirical hypothesis Adam Olszewski Pontifical Academy of Theology, Kanonicza 25, 31-002 Kraków, Poland The studies of Church’s thesis (further denoted as CT) are slowly gaining their intensity. Since different formulations of the thesis are being proposed, it is necessary to state how it should be understood. The following is the formulation given by Church: [CT] The concept of the effectively calculable function1 is identical with the concept of the recursive function. The conviction that the above formulation is correct, finds its confirmation in Church’s own words:2 We now define the notion, […] of an effectively calculable function of positive integers by identifying it with the notion of a recursive function of positive integers […]. Frege thought that the material equivalence of concepts is the approximation of their identity. For any concepts F, G: Concept FUMCS is identical with concept G iff ∀x (Fx ≡ Gx) 3. The symbol Fx should be read as “object x falls under the concept F”. The contemporary understanding of the right side of the above equation was dominated by the first order logic and set theory. 1Unless stated otherwise, the term function in this work always means function defined on the set natural numbers, that is, on natural numbers including zero. I would rather use the term concept than the term notion.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Graphical Editors for Extensible Modular Meta Models
    X perf =1.00 X loss =0.01 SDSoftware Design and Quality Flexible Graphical Editors for Extensible Modular Meta Models Master’s Thesis of B.Sc. Michael Junker at the Department of Informatics Institute for Program Structures and Data Organization (IPD) Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Ralf Reussner Second reviewer: Jun.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Anne Koziolek Advisor: Dipl.-Inform. Misha Strittmatter Second advisor: M.Sc. Heiko Klare 12. April 2016 – 11. October 2016 Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Fakultät für Informatik Postfach 6980 76128 Karlsruhe I declare that I have developed and written the enclosed thesis completely by myself, and have not used sources or means without declaration in the text. Karlsruhe, 10.October 2016 .................................... (B.Sc. Michael Junker) Abstract In model-driven software development, graphical editors can be used to create model instances more eciently and intuitively than with pure XML code. These graphical editors rely on models created on the basis of a meta-model. If such a meta-model is extended invasively not only its code has to be re-generated but also the graphical editor needs to be adapted. When developing multiple extensions, the meta-model as well as the corresponding graphical editor tend to get complex and error-prone. One way of coping with this complexity is to use modular meta-models and extending them noninvasively. However, having multiple meta-model fragments providing extended features is only half the job as equivalent graphical editors are needed as well. This master’s thesis therefore analyzes dierent types of extensions for meta-models as well as on graphical editor level.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanized Metatheory for the Masses: the POPLMARK Challenge
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (CIS) Department of Computer & Information Science August 2005 Mechanized Metatheory for the Masses: The POPLMARK Challenge Brian E. Aydemir University of Pennsylvania Aaron Bohannon University of Pennsylvania Matthew Fairbairn University of Cambridge J. Nathan Foster University of Pennsylvania Benjamin C. Pierce University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers Recommended Citation Brian E. Aydemir, Aaron Bohannon, Matthew Fairbairn, J. Nathan Foster, Benjamin C. Pierce, Peter Sewell, Dimitrios Vytiniotis, Geoffrey Washburn, Stephanie C. Weirich, and Stephan A. Zdancewic, "Mechanized Metatheory for the Masses: The POPLMARK Challenge", . August 2005. Postprint version. Published in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3603, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs 2005), pages 50-65. Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11541868_4 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers/235 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mechanized Metatheory for the Masses: The POPLMARK Challenge Abstract How close are we to a world where every paper on programming languages is accompanied by an electronic appendix with machinechecked proofs? We propose an initial set of benchmarks for measuring progress in this area. Based on the metatheory of System F, a typed lambda-calculus with second-order polymorphism, subtyping, and records, these benchmarks embody many aspects of programming languages that are challenging to formalize: variable binding at both the term and type levels, syntactic forms with variable numbers of components (including binders), and proofs demanding complex induction principles.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Alfred Tarski (1901–1983), Alonzo Church (1903–1995), and Kurt Gödel (1906–1978)
    9 Alfred Tarski (1901–1983), Alonzo Church (1903–1995), and Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) C. ANTHONY ANDERSON Alfred Tarski Tarski, born in Poland, received his doctorate at the University of Warsaw under Stanislaw Lesniewski. In 1942, he was given a position with the Department of Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he taught until 1968. Undoubtedly Tarski’s most important philosophical contribution is his famous “semantical” definition of truth. Traditional attempts to define truth did not use this terminology and it is not easy to give a precise characterization of the idea. The under- lying conception is that semantics concerns meaning as a relation between a linguistic expression and what it expresses, represents, or stands for. Thus “denotes,” “desig- nates,” “names,” and “refers to” are semantical terms, as is “expresses.” The term “sat- isfies” is less familiar but also plausibly belongs in this category. For example, the number 2 is said to satisfy the equation “x2 = 4,” and by analogy we might say that Aristotle satisfies (or satisfied) the formula “x is a student of Plato.” It is not quite obvious that there is a meaning of “true” which makes it a semanti- cal term. If we think of truth as a property of sentences, as distinguished from the more traditional conception of it as a property of beliefs or propositions, it turns out to be closely related to satisfaction. In fact, Tarski found that he could define truth in this sense in terms of satisfaction. The goal which Tarski set himself (Tarski 1944, Woodger 1956) was to find a “mate- rially adequate” and formally correct definition of the concept of truth as it applies to sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Critique of the Church-Turing Theorem
    CRITIQUE OF THE CHURCH-TURING THEOREM TIMM LAMPERT Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin e-mail address: lampertt@staff.hu-berlin.de Abstract. This paper first criticizes Church's and Turing's proofs of the undecidability of FOL. It identifies assumptions of Church's and Turing's proofs to be rejected, justifies their rejection and argues for a new discussion of the decision problem. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Critique of Church's Proof 2 2.1. Church's Proof 2 2.2. Consistency of Q 6 2.3. Church's Thesis 7 2.4. The Problem of Translation 9 3. Critique of Turing's Proof 19 References 22 1. Introduction First-order logic without names, functions or identity (FOL) is the simplest first-order language to which the Church-Turing theorem applies. I have implemented a decision procedure, the FOL-Decider, that is designed to refute this theorem. The implemented decision procedure requires the application of nothing but well-known rules of FOL. No assumption is made that extends beyond equivalence transformation within FOL. In this respect, the decision procedure is independent of any controversy regarding foundational matters. However, this paper explains why it is reasonable to work out such a decision procedure despite the fact that the Church-Turing theorem is widely acknowledged. It provides a cri- tique of modern versions of Church's and Turing's proofs. I identify the assumption of each proof that I question, and I explain why I question it. I also identify many assumptions that I do not question to clarify where exactly my reasoning deviates and to show that my critique is not born from philosophical scepticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Warren Goldfarb, Notes on Metamathematics
    Notes on Metamathematics Warren Goldfarb W.B. Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic Department of Philosophy Harvard University DRAFT: January 1, 2018 In Memory of Burton Dreben (1927{1999), whose spirited teaching on G¨odeliantopics provided the original inspiration for these Notes. Contents 1 Axiomatics 1 1.1 Formal languages . 1 1.2 Axioms and rules of inference . 5 1.3 Natural numbers: the successor function . 9 1.4 General notions . 13 1.5 Peano Arithmetic. 15 1.6 Basic laws of arithmetic . 18 2 G¨odel'sProof 23 2.1 G¨odelnumbering . 23 2.2 Primitive recursive functions and relations . 25 2.3 Arithmetization of syntax . 30 2.4 Numeralwise representability . 35 2.5 Proof of incompleteness . 37 2.6 `I am not derivable' . 40 3 Formalized Metamathematics 43 3.1 The Fixed Point Lemma . 43 3.2 G¨odel'sSecond Incompleteness Theorem . 47 3.3 The First Incompleteness Theorem Sharpened . 52 3.4 L¨ob'sTheorem . 55 4 Formalizing Primitive Recursion 59 4.1 ∆0,Σ1, and Π1 formulas . 59 4.2 Σ1-completeness and Σ1-soundness . 61 4.3 Proof of Representability . 63 3 5 Formalized Semantics 69 5.1 Tarski's Theorem . 69 5.2 Defining truth for LPA .......................... 72 5.3 Uses of the truth-definition . 74 5.4 Second-order Arithmetic . 76 5.5 Partial truth predicates . 79 5.6 Truth for other languages . 81 6 Computability 85 6.1 Computability . 85 6.2 Recursive and partial recursive functions . 87 6.3 The Normal Form Theorem and the Halting Problem . 91 6.4 Turing Machines .
    [Show full text]
  • Common Sense for Concurrency and Strong Paraconsistency Using Unstratified Inference and Reflection
    Published in ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4852 http://commonsense.carlhewitt.info Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection Carl Hewitt http://carlhewitt.info This paper is dedicated to John McCarthy. Abstract Unstratified Reflection is the Norm....................................... 11 Abstraction and Reification .............................................. 11 This paper develops a strongly paraconsistent formalism (called Direct Logic™) that incorporates the mathematics of Diagonal Argument .......................................................... 12 Computer Science and allows unstratified inference and Logical Fixed Point Theorem ........................................... 12 reflection using mathematical induction for almost all of Disadvantages of stratified metatheories ........................... 12 classical logic to be used. Direct Logic allows mutual Reification Reflection ....................................................... 13 reflection among the mutually chock full of inconsistencies Incompleteness Theorem for Theories of Direct Logic ..... 14 code, documentation, and use cases of large software systems Inconsistency Theorem for Theories of Direct Logic ........ 15 thereby overcoming the limitations of the traditional Tarskian Consequences of Logically Necessary Inconsistency ........ 16 framework of stratified metatheories. Concurrency is the Norm ...................................................... 16 Gödel first formalized and proved that it is not possible
    [Show full text]
  • METALOGIC METALOGIC an Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic
    METALOGIC METALOGIC An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic Geoffrey Hunter Senior Lecturer in the Department of Logic and Metaphysics University of St Andrews PALGRA VE MACMILLAN © Geoffrey Hunter 1971 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1971 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. First published 1971 by MACMILLAN AND CO LTD London and Basingstoke Associated companies in New York Toronto Dublin Melbourne Johannesburg and Madras SBN 333 11589 9 (hard cover) 333 11590 2 (paper cover) ISBN 978-0-333-11590-9 ISBN 978-1-349-15428-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-15428-9 The Papermac edition of this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent, in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. To my mother and to the memory of my father, Joseph Walter Hunter Contents Preface xi Part One: Introduction: General Notions 1 Formal languages 4 2 Interpretations of formal languages. Model theory 6 3 Deductive apparatuses. Formal systems. Proof theory 7 4 'Syntactic', 'Semantic' 9 5 Metatheory. The metatheory of logic 10 6 Using and mentioning. Object language and metalang- uage. Proofs in a formal system and proofs about a formal system. Theorem and metatheorem 10 7 The notion of effective method in logic and mathematics 13 8 Decidable sets 16 9 1-1 correspondence.
    [Show full text]
  • AMASS Platform Developers' Guide
    ECSEL Research and Innovation actions (RIA) AMASS Architecture-driven, Multi-concern and Seamless Assurance and Certification of Cyber-Physical Systems AMASS Platform Developers’ Guide Work Package: WP2: Reference Architecture and Integration Dissemination level: PU = Public Status: Final Date: 21st November 2018 Responsible partner: Ángel López (Tecnalia Research & Innovation) Contact information: [email protected] Document reference: AMASS_Platform_DevelopersGuide_WP2_TEC_V1.0 PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT This document contains information that is proprietary to the AMASS Consortium. Permission to reproduce any content for non-commercial purposes is granted, provided that this document and the AMASS project are credited as source. This deliverable is part of a project that has received funding from the ECSEL JU under grant agreement No 692474. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programe and from Spain, Czech Republic, Germany, Sweden, Italy, United Kingdom and France. Contributors Names Organisation A. Ruiz, H. Espinoza, A. Lopez TECNALIA Research & Innovation (TEC) I. Ayala, B. Gallina, M. A. Javed Maelardalens Hoegskola (MDH) S. Puri INTECS (INT) Reviewers Names Organisation C. Martinez (Quality Manager) TECNALIA Research & Innovation (TEC) H2020-JTI-ECSEL-2015 # 692474 Page 2 of 68 AMASS AMASS Platform Developers’ Guide V1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]