home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.object:3081 comp.specification:335
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.specification
- Path: sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!dancer!haim
- From: haim@dancer.uucp (24103-kilov)
- Subject: Re: Current OOA/OOD and formal methods
- Reply-To: haim@dancer.UUCP ()
- Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:56:51 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Jul31.165651.27509@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
- Keywords: A++, Z, VDM, formal methods, OOA/OOD
- References: <18822@drutx.ATT.COM>
- Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
- Lines: 21
-
- There is a common ground. In fact, consider a graphical notation just like any
- other notation and define it formally. If a graphical notation denotes in
- an unambiguous manner components of precisely defined libraries then you
- have sort of a synthesis of the two. We have attempted to do that for generic
- object classes encountered in information modeling. These classes represent
- associations, and each of them is defined by means of the invariant and the
- pre- and postconditions for the CRUD operations. After that is understood,
- you can provide a graphical notation for these associations (which is close
- to an extended ER). Note that these classes are defined on the basis of
- behavior.
-
- As I have mentioned in comp.object before, we have published something in
- TOOLS '91 and also, more recently, as a Bellcore document "The Framework:
- a Disciplined Approach to Analysis".
-
- Hope this helps.
-
- -Haim Kilov
-
- haim@bcr.cc.bellcore.com or
- haim@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
-