Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Brian Ritchie

dblp:59/4884 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
0009-0000-7147-9934ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Theory of computation · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 50% Program verification · 50%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Logic in computer science · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
formal specification
0.011995
Invariants, Frames, and Postconditions: A Comparison of the VDM and B Notations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1995
Program verification
refinement
0.011995
Invariants, Frames, and Postconditions: A Comparison of the VDM and B Notations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1995
Logic in computer science
formal methods
0.011995
Invariants, Frames, and Postconditions: A Comparison of the VDM and B Notations · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1995

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

relational postconditions · 0.0invariant-based postconditions · 0.0generalized substitutions · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 A Semantic Approach to Enhance Service Composition in Workflows that use Mobile Services
abstract
The successful execution of workflows using mobile services is dependant on the services behaving as expected. The management of this behaviour in Akogrimo is achieved by a context management framework bridging both the network and Grid middleware. The quality of the information that passes over this link is essential to the whole Akogrimo application. In order to ensure relevant and specific context information is used in Akogrimo the development of mechanism to aid network to middleware service to service understanding is essential. In creating such a mechanism the concept of self similarity in creating understanding between services is essential. The challenges and issues when applying this process to Akogrimo's unique mix of services are discussed in this paper.
Robert B. Piotter, Tom Kirkham, Julian Gallop, Ian J. Johnson, Damian Mac Randal, Brian Ritchie
CCGRID6
1998 Investigating the Integration of two Formal Methods
abstract
Abstract. VDM and B are two mature formal methods currently in use by industry and supported by commercial tools. Though the methods are foundationally similar, the coverage of their supporting tools differ significantly. The SPECTRUM project has investigated the feasibility of integrating support for the two methodologies. In this paper, we describe the project and report on some technical results.
Juan Bicarregui, Brian Matthews, Brian Ritchie, Sten Agerholm
Formal Aspects Comput.3
1995 Invariants, Frames, and Postconditions: A Comparison of the VDM and B Notations
abstract
VDM and B are two "model-oriented" formal methods. Each gives a notation for the specification of systems as state machines in terms of a set of states with operations defined as relations on that set. Each has a notion of refinement of data and operations based on the principles of reduction of nondeterminism and increase in definedness. The paper makes a comparison of the two notations through an example of a communications protocol previously formalized by G. Bruns and S. Anderson (1994). Two abstractions and two reifications of the original specification are given. Particular attention is paid to three areas where the notations differ: the use of postconditions that assume the invariant as opposed to postconditions that enforce it; the explicit "framing" of operations as opposed to the "minimal frame" approach; and the use of relational postconditions as opposed to generalized substitutions.>
Juan Bicarregui, Brian Ritchie
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2