Axiomatising asynchronous process calculi

  • Matthew Hennessy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1684)


Most semantic theories for process calculi presuppose that communication is synchronous; the sending and receiving processes must rendezvous for the communication to occur. However there is now considerable interest in process languages based on asynchronous communication, where the sender is not blocked but may transmit a message even in the absence of a waiting receiver. On the one hand this communication paradigm is much easier to implement and consequently has been adopted by numerous recently developed process languages, [4,7]. On the other hand it has been argued in papers such as [2,5] that, at least for pi-calculus based theories, asynchrony is a more basic concept in terms of which theories of synchronous communication can be established.

Despite this interest in asynchrony there has been little research into axiomatising process calculi based on this form of communication. In this talk I will survey existing results, such as those in [1,3], and discuss equational theories for synchronous versions of both value-passing CCS


  1. [1]
    R. Amadio, I. Castellani, and D. Sangiorgi. On bisimulations for the asynchronous π-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 195:291–324, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Boudol. Asynchrony and the π-calculus. Research Report 1702, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    I. Castellani and M. Hennessy. Testing theories for asynchronous languages. In Proc. of FST-TCS 98, LNCS 1530, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Fournet, G. Gonthier, J. J. Levy, L. Marganget and D. Remy. A Calculus of Mobile Agents. In Proc. CONCUR’96, LLNCS 1119, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Honda and M. Tokoro. On asynchronous communication semantics. In Proc. Object-Based Concurrent Computing, LNCS 612, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Benjamin C. Pierce and David N. Turner. Pict: A programming language based on the pi-calculus. Technical Report CSCI 476, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, 1997. To appear in Proof, Language and Interaction: Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, Gordon Plotkin, Colin Stirling, and Mads Tofte, editors, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Hennessy
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SussexUSA

Personalised recommendations