On Syntactic and Semantic Action Refinement

The semantic definition of action refinement on labelled event structures is compared with the notion of syntactic substitution, which can be used as another notion of action refinement in a process algebraic setting. This is done by studying a process algebra equipped with the ACP sequential composition, parallel composition with an explicit synchronisation set, and an operator for action refinement. On the one hand, the language (including the refinement operator) is given a flow event structure semantics. On the other hand, a reduction procedure transforms a process term P into a flat term (i.e., with the refinement operator not occurring in it) red(P) by means of syntactic substitution, defined in a structural inductive way. The main aim of the paper is to find general conditions under which the terms P and red(P) have the same semantics. The results we present are essentially dependent on the question whether the refined action can be synchronised or not. In the latter case, P and red(P) give rise to isomorphic flow event structures under mild assumptions. The former case is considerably more difficult. We give necessary and sufficient semantic conditions under which refinement can be distributed over synchronisation up to isomorphic domains of configurations. Subsequently we also give sufficient (but not necessary) syntactic conditions for reducible terms.

[1]  Ursula Goltz,et al.  Equivalences and Refinement , 1990, Semantics of Systems of Concurrent Processes.

[2]  Ursula Goltz,et al.  Refinement of Actions in Causality Based Models , 1990, REX Workshop.

[3]  Walter Vogler.  Failures Semantics Based on Interval Semiwords is a Congruence for Refinement , 1990, STACS.

[4]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  Event Structures , 1986, Advances in Petri Nets.

[5]  Luca Aceto,et al.  Towards Action-Refinement in Process Algebras , 1993, Inf. Comput..

[6]  Walter Vogler.  Bisimulation and Action Refinement , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Philippe Darondeau,et al.  Event Structures, Causal Trees, and Refinements , 1990, MFCS.

[8]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  Self-Synchronization of Concurrent Processes (Preliminary Report) , 1993, LICS 1993.

[9]  Luca Aceto,et al.  Adding Action Refinement to a Finite Process Algebra , 1991, Inf. Comput..

[10]  Gérard Boudol.  Atomic actions , 1989, Bull. EATCS.

[11]  Ursula Goltz,et al.  Equivalence Notions for Concurrent Systems and Refinement of Actions (Extended Abstract) , 1989, MFCS.

[12]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  Testing Equivalence for Petri Nets with Action Refinement: Preliminary Report , 1992, CONCUR.

[13]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency , 1988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Kim S. Larsen,et al.  Fully abstract models for a process language with refinement , 1988, REX Workshop.

[15]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  Self-synchronization of concurrent processes , 1993, [1993] Proceedings Eighth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[16]  Raymond R. Devillers,et al.  General Refinement and Recursion Operators for the Petri Box Calculus , 1993, STACS.

[17]  Ilaria Castellani,et al.  Permutation of transitions: An event structure semantics for CCS and SCCS , 1988, REX Workshop.

[18]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  An Introduction to Event Structures , 1989 .

[19]  Roberto Gorrieri,et al.  A2CCKS: Atomic Actions for CCS , 1990, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Arend Rensink.  Models and Methods for Action Refinement , 1993 .