Atomic Components

The operational definition of observational congruence in CCS and ACP can be split into two parts: one, the definition of an observational semantics (ie abstraction); and two, the definition of a strong congruence. In both cases this “separation of concerns” has been applied with abstraction that is implicitly “fair”. We define a novel (if obvious) observational semantics with no implicit “fairness”. When combining this observational semantics with failure equality the resulting observational semantics is shown to be equal, other than for minor details, to NDFD semantics. We also combine our observational semantics with singleton failure semantics and we establish congruence results for this new observational equality.

[1]  Carl A. Sunshine,et al.  Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification - Guest Editorial , 1982, Comput. Networks.

[2]  Jana Kosecka,et al.  Control of Discrete Event Systems , 1992 .

[3]  Jim Woodcock,et al.  The Semantics of Circus , 2002, ZB.

[4]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  Failures without chaos: a new process semantics for fair abstraction , 1987, Formal Description of Programming Concepts.

[5]  Jim Davies,et al.  A singleton failures semantics for Communicating Sequential Processes , 2006, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[6]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Testing Equivalences for Processes , 1984, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  Refinement in Z and object-Z: foundations and advanced applications , 2002, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[8]  Angelo Gargantini,et al.  Abstract State Machines 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  Mogens Nielsen,et al.  Models for Concurrency , 1992 .

[10]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[11]  Graeme Smith,et al.  A Semantic Integration of Object-Z and CSP for the Specification of Concurrent Systems , 1997, FME.

[12]  Eerke Albert Boiten,et al.  Refinement in Z and Object-Z: Foundations and Advanced Applications , 2001 .

[13]  M. Heymann.  Concurrency and discrete event control , 1990, IEEE Control Systems Magazine.

[14]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[15]  Graeme Smith,et al.  A fully abstract semantics of classes for Object-Z , 1995, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[16]  Stuart Anderson,et al.  Diagrams and Programming Languages for Programmable Controllers , 1997, FME.

[17]  Martti Tienari,et al.  Compositional failure-based semantic models for Basic LOTOS , 2005, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[18]  Matthew Hennessy,et al.  Algebraic theory of processes , 1988, MIT Press series in the foundations of computing.

[19]  Egon Börger,et al.  Abstract State Processes , 2003, Abstract State Machines.

[20]  Jonathan P. Bowen,et al.  ZB 2002:Formal Specification and Development in Z and B , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  Martti Tienari,et al.  An Improved Failures Equivalence for Finite-State Systems with a Reduction Algorithm , 1991, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification.

[22]  Guy Leduc,et al.  Failure-based congruences, unfair divergences and new testing theory , 1995, PSTV.

[23]  Andrew William Roscoe,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Concurrency , 1997 .

[24]  Andrew M. Gravell,et al.  Refinement Semantics and Loop Rules , 1999, World Congress on Formal Methods.

[25]  G. Meyer,et al.  An algebra of discrete event processes , 1991 .

[26]  Giuseppe Scollo,et al.  Lotos specifications, their implementations and their tests , 1995 .

[27]  Steve Reeves,et al.  State-based and process-based value passing , 2003 .

[28]  Wolfram Schulte,et al.  The ABCs of specification: asml, behavior, and components , 2001, Informatica.

[29]  Antti Valmari,et al.  Merging state-based and action-based verification , 2003, Third International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design, 2003. Proceedings..

[30]  Steve Reeves,et al.  Comparison of Data and Process Refinement , 2003, ICFEM.

[31]  R. V. Glabbeek.  CHAPTER 1 – The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum I.* The Semantics of Concrete, Sequential Processes , 2001 .

[32]  S. Anderson,et al.  Secure Synthesis of Code: A Process Improvement Experiment , 1999, World Congress on Formal Methods.

[33]  Antti Valmari,et al.  The Weakest Compositional Semantic Equivalence Preserving Nexttime-less Linear temporal Logic , 1992, CONCUR.