Some observations on redundancy in a context

Vaandrager, Frits

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511608841.011

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An interesting option for future work is to investigate those issues in the setting presented in this paper. We expect that the technique to make use of redundancy in a context introduced in the setting of ACP in [21] can be useful for checking whether two components are compatible. We expect that an extension of the theory developed in this paper with abstraction, in a way similar to the extension of ACP with abstraction in [5], is needed for verifying whether one component refines another component.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Interface Group for Process Components

Bergstra

Middelburg

2010

Fundamenta Informaticae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We take a process component as a pair of an interface and a behaviour. We study the composition of interacting process components in the setting of process algebra. We formalize the interfaces of interacting process components by means of an interface group. An interesting feature of the interface group is that it allows for distinguishing between expectations and promises in interfaces of process components. This distinction comes into play in case components with both client and server behaviour are involved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Interface Group for Process Components

Bergstra

Middelburg

2010

Fundamenta Informaticae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…KF AR -turns out to be sufficient for the protocol verifications in [22,25,27]. However, for our purposes KF AR -is not what we want.…”

Section: Failure Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Process algebra semantics of POOL

Vaandrager¹

1990

Applications of Process Algebra

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we describe a translation of the Parallel Object-Oriented Language POOL to the language of ACP, the Algebra of Communicating Processes. This translation provides us with a large number of semantics for POOL. It is argued that an optimal semantics for POOL does not exist: what is optimal depends on the application domain one has in mind. We show that the select statement in POOL makes a semantical description of POOL with handshaking communication between objects incompatible with a description level where message queues are used. Attention is paid to the question how fairness and successful termination can be included in the semantics. Finally it is shown that integers and booleans in POOL can be implemented in various ways.

show abstract

“…Invariants are omnipresent in computer science. Proof strategies for protocol veri cation in an algebraic style appear among others in 16,17,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus points and convergent process operators: a proof strategy for protocol verification

Groote

Springintveld

2001

The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a strategy for nding algebraic correctness proofs for communication systems. It is described in the setting of CRL 11], which is, roughly, A CP 2, 3] extended with a formal treatment of the interaction between data and processes. The strategy has already been applied successfully in 4] and 10], but was not explicitly identi ed as such. Moreover, the protocols that were veri ed in these papers were rather complex, so that the general picture was obscured by the amount of details. In this paper, the proof strategy is materialised in the form of de nitions and theorems. These results reduce a large part of protocol veri cation to a number of trivial facts concerning data parameters occurring in implementation and speci cation. This greatly simpli es protocol veri cations and makes our approach amenable to mechanical assistance experiments in this direction seem promising. The strategy is illustrated by several small examples and one larger example, the Concurrent Alternating Bit Protocol (CABP). Although simple, this protocol contains a large amount o f i n ternal parallelism, so that all relevant i s s u e s m a k e their appearance. A preliminary version of this paper appeared in Models and Proofs, proceedings of AMAST workshop on Real-Time systems and Op eration Inter-PRC \Mod eles et Preuves", Bordeaux, 1995.

show abstract

Some observations on redundancy in a context

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

An Interface Group for Process Components

An Interface Group for Process Components

Process algebra semantics of POOL

Focus points and convergent process operators: a proof strategy for protocol verification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About