The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Specification techniques for data abstractions
Abstract
Discusses the importance of formal specifications and surveys a number of promising specification techniques. The role of formal specifications both in proofs of program correctness and in programming methodologies leading to programs which are correct by construction, is explained. Some criteria are established for evaluating the practical potential of specification techniques. The importance of providing specifications at the right level of abstraction is discussed, and a particularly interesting class of specification techniques, those used to construct specifications of data abstractions, is identified. A number of specification techniques for describing data abstractions are surveyed and evaluated with respect to the criteria.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. (2002) · ACM Transactions on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/571637.571640 · Cited by 2,475
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Liskov, B. H., & Zilles, S. N.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 1975-03
- Volume
- SE-1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-19
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- 2326-3881
- OpenAlex
- W4239702739
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
