Advertisement

Observing distribution in processes

  • Ilaria Castellani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 711)

Abstract

The distributed structure of CCS processes can be made explicit by assigning different locations to their parallel components. These locations then become part of what is observed of a process. The assignment of locations may be done statically, or dynamically as the execution proceeds. The dynamic approach was developed first, by Boudol et al. in [BCHK91a], [BCHKSlb], as it seemed more convenient for defining notions of location equivalence and preorder. However, it has the drawback of yielding infinite transition system representations. The static approach, which is more intuitive but technically more elaborate, was later developed by L. Aceto [Ace91] for nets of automata, a subset of CCS where parallelism is only allowed at the top level. In this approach each net of automata has a finite representation, and one may derive notions of equivalence and preorder which coincide with the dynamic ones. The present work generalizes the static treatment of Aceto to full CCS. The result is a distributed semantics which yields finite transition systems for all CCS processes with a regular behaviour and a finite degree of parallelism.

Keywords

Transition System Dynamic Location Parallel Component Location Association Access Path 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ace91]
    L. Aceto. A static view of localities. Report 1483, INRIA, 1991. To appear in Formal Aspects of Computing.Google Scholar
  2. [BC91]
    G. Boudol and I. Castellani. Flow models of distributed computations: three equivalent semantics for CCS. Report 1484, INRIA, 1991. To appear in Information and Computation. Previous version in Proc. La Roche-Posay, LNCS 469, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [BCHK91a]
    G. Boudol, I. Castellani, M. Hennessy, and A. Kiehn. Observing localities. Report 4/91, Sussex University, and INRIA Res. Rep. 1485, 1991. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science. Extended abstract in Proc. MFCS 91, LNCS 520, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [BCHK91b]
    G. Boudol, I. Castellani, M. Hennessy, and A. Kiehn. A theory of processes with localities. Report 1632, INRIA, 1991. To appear in Formal Aspects of Computing. Extended abstract in Proc. CONCUR92, LNCS 630, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [Cas93]
    I. Castellani. Full version of this paper. Report, INRIA, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. [DD90]
    Ph. Darondeau and P. Degano. Causal trees: interleaving + causality. In Proceedings LITP Spring School, La Roche-Posay, number 469 in LNCS, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [DDNM87]
    P. Degano, R. De Nicola, and U. Montanari. Observational equivalences for concurrency models. In M. Wirsing, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts-III, Proceedings of the 3th IFIP WG 2.2 working conference, Ebberup 1986, pages 105–129. North-Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [GG89]
    R.J. van Glabbeek and U. Goltz. Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. Arbeitspapiere der GMD 366, Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung, Sankt Augustin, 1989. Extended abstract in Proc. MFCS 89, LNCS 379, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [Kie91]
    A. Kiehn. Local and global causes. Report 342/23/91, Technische Universität München, 1991. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. [M1180]
    R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. [MN92]
    M. Mukund and M. Nielsen. CCS, locations and asynchronous transition systems. In Proceedings FST-TCS 92, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [MY92]
    U. Montanari and D. Yankelevich. A parametric approach to localities. In Proceedings ICALP 92, number 623 in LNCS, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [Yan93]
    D. Yankelevich. Parametric Views of Process Description Languages. Ph.d. thesis, University of Pisa, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilaria Castellani
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia-AntipolisValbonneFrance

Personalised recommendations