Qualitative Constraint Calculi: Heterogeneous Verification of Composition Tables

In the domain of qualitative constraint reasoning, a subfield of AI which has evolved in the past 25 years, a large number of calculi for efficient reasoning about spatial and temporal entities has been developed. Reasoning techniques developed for these constraint calculi typically rely on so-called composition tables of the calculus at hand, which allow for replacing semantic reasoning by symbolic operations. Often these composition tables are developed in a quite informal, pictorial manner and hence composition tables are prone to errors. In view of possible safety critical applications of qualitative calculi, however, it is desirable to formally verify these composition tables. In general, the verification of composition tables is a tedious task, in particular in cases where the semantics of the calculus depends on higher-order constructs such as sets. In this paper we address this problem by presenting a heterogeneous proof method that allows for combining a higher-order proof assistance system (such as Isabelle) with an automatic (first order) reasoner (such as SPASS or VAMPIRE). The benefit of this method is that the number of proof obligations that is to be proven interactively with a semi-automatic reasoner can be minimized to an acceptable level

LoLa: a modular ontology of logics, languages and translations

The Distributed Ontology Language (DOL), currently being standardised within the OntoIOp (Ontology Integration and Interoperability) activity of ISO/TC 37/SC 3, aims at providing a unified framework for (i) ontologies formalised in heterogeneous logics, (ii) modular ontologies, (iii) links between ontologies, and (iv) annotation of ontologies.\ud \ud This paper focuses on the LoLa ontology, which formally describes DOL's vocabulary for logics, ontology languages (and their serialisations), as well as logic translations. Interestingly, to adequately formalise the logical relationships between these notions, LoLa itself needs to be axiomatised heterogeneously---a task for which we choose DOL. Namely, we use the logic RDF for ABox assertions, OWL for basic axiomatisations of various modules concerning logics, languages, and translations, FOL for capturing certain closure rules that are not expressible in OWL (For the sake of tool availability it is still helpful not to map everything to FOL.), and circumscription for minimising the extension of concepts describing default translations

UML Interactions Meet State Machines - An Institutional Approach

UML allows the multi-viewpoint modelling of systems. One important question is whether an interaction as specified by a sequence diagram can be actually realised in the system. Here, the latter is specified as a combination of several state machines (one for each lifeline in the interaction) by a composite structure diagram. In order to tackle this question, we formalise the involved UML diagram types as institutions, and their relations as institution (co)morphisms

Heterogeneous Theories and the Heterogeneous Tool Set

Heterogeneous multi-logic theories arise in different contexts: they are needed for the specification of large software systems, as well as for mediating between different ontologies. This is because large theories typically involve different aspects that are best specified in different logics (like equational logics, description logics, first-order logics, higher-order logics, modal logics), but also because different formalisms are in practical use (like RDF, OWL, EML). Using heterogeneous theories, different formalims being developed at different sites can be related, i.e. there is a formal interoperability among languages and tools. In many cases, specialized languages and tools have their strengths in particular aspects. Using heterogeneous theories, these strengths can be combined with comparably small effort. By contrast, a true combination of all the involved logics into a single logic would be too complex (or even inconsistent) in many cases. We propose to use emph{institutions} as a formalization of the notion of logical system. Institutions can be related by so-called institution morphsims and comorphisms. Any graph of institutions and (co)morphisms can be flattened to a so-called emph{Grothendieck institution}, which is kind of disjoint union of all the logics, enriched with connections via the (co)morphisms. This semantic basis for heterogeneous theories is complemented by the heterogeneous tool set, which provides tool support. Based on an object-oriented interface for institutions (using type classes in Haskell), it implements the Grothendieck institution and provides a heterogeneous parser, static analysis and proof support for heterogeneous theories. This is based on parsers, static analysers and proof support for the individual institutions, and on a heterogeneous proof calculus for theories in the Grothendieck institution. See also the Hets web page: http://www.tzi.de/cofi/het

Applications of Metric Coinduction

Metric coinduction is a form of coinduction that can be used to establish properties of objects constructed as a limit of finite approximations. One can prove a coinduction step showing that some property is preserved by one step of the approximation process, then automatically infer by the coinduction principle that the property holds of the limit object. This can often be used to avoid complicated analytic arguments involving limits and convergence, replacing them with simpler algebraic arguments. This paper examines the application of this principle in a variety of areas, including infinite streams, Markov chains, Markov decision processes, and non-well-founded sets. These results point to the usefulness of coinduction as a general proof technique