Type-syntax and token-syntax in diagrammatic systems

ABSTRACT

While it is crucial to understand the formal structure of the semantic domain of an information system, in this paper we raise an ontological issue about the syntactic aspect of a representation system through a case study on a diagrammatic system. The uptake in the software industry of notations for designing systems visually has been accelerated with the standardization of the Unified Modeling Language (UML). The formalization of diagrammatic notations is important for the development of essential tool support and to allow reasoning to take place at the diagrammatic level. Focusing on an extended version of Venn and Euler diagram(which was developed to complement UML in the specification of software systems), this paper presents two levels of syntax for this system: type-syntax and token-syntax. Token-syntax is about particular diagrams instantiated on some physical medium, and type-syntax provides a formal definition with which a concrete representation of a diagram must comply. While these two levels of syntax are closely related, the domains of type-syntax and token-syntax are ontologically independent, that is, one is abstract and the other concrete. We discuss the roles of type-syntax and token-syntax in diagrammatic systems and show that it is important to consider both levels of syntax in diagrammatic reasoning systems and in developing software tools to support such systems.

REFERENCES

• 1: L. Euler. Lettres a Une Princesse d'Allemagne, volume 2. 1761. Letters No. 102-108.
• 2: J. Flower. Generating Constraint Diagrams. MSc diss., Univ. of Brighton, 2000.
• 3: Joseph (Yossi) Gil , John Howse , Stuart Kent, Formalizing Spider Diagrams, Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, p.130, September 13-16, 1999
• 4: J. Gil, Y. Sorkin. The Constraint Diagrams Editor. Available at http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/Labs/ssdl/research/cdeditor/.
• 5: N. Goodman. Languages of Art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Hackett Publishing Co, INC. 1976.
• 6: Eric M. Hammer, Logic and Visual Information, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996
• 7: John Howse , Fernando Molina , John Taylor, On the Completeness and Expressiveness of Spider Diagram Systems, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams, p.26-41, September 01-03, 2000
• 8: J. Howse, F. Molina, J. Taylor, S. Kent, J. Gil. Spider Diagrams: A Diagrammatic Reasoning System. Accepted for J. of Visual Languages and Computing. To appear, 2001.
• 9: Stuart Kent, Constraint diagrams: visualizing invariants in object-oriented models, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.327-341, October 05-09, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
• 10: R. Lull. Ars Magma. Lyons, 1517.
• 11: F. Molina. Reasoning with extended Venn-Peirce diagrammatic systems. PhD Thesis, Univ of Brighton, 200 1.
• 12: OMG. UML Specification, Version 1.3. Available from www.omg.org.
• 13: C. Peirce. Collected Papers Vol. 4. Harvard Univ. Press, 1933.
• 14: P. Scotto di Luzio. Patching up a logic of Venn diagrams. Selected papers from the sixth CSLI WS on Logic, Language and Computation. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2000.
• 15: S.-J. Shin. The Logical Status of Diagrams. CUP, 1994.
• 16: J. Venn. On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. Phil.Mag., 1880. 123.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.1 Requirements/Specifications

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: State diagrams
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.1 Formal Definitions and Theory
          Subjects: Syntax

  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.0 General

General Terms:
Design, Languages, Theory

Keywords:
concrete and abstract syntax, diagrammatic reasoning, formal methods, software specification, visual formalisms