Advertisement

Semantics and expressive power of a timed concurrent constraint language

  • Frank de Boer
  • M. Gabbrielli
  • M. C. Meo
Session 2a
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1330)

Abstract

We consider a timed extension of concurrent constraint programming, called tccp. For this language we define a denotational model which is fully abstract wrt the standard notion of observables (input-output pairs). We also define a fully abstract semantics for a sublanguage of tccp, called ccpx, which essentially is standard concurrent constraint programming (ccp), provided that we interpret the parallel operator in terms of “maximal parallelism” rather than of interleaving. Finally we compare the expressive power of these languages. We show that tccp is strictly more expressive than ccpx which, in its turn, is strictly more expressive than ccp.

Keywords

Parallel Operator Operational Semantic Constraint System Parallel Composition Denotational Semantic 
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. 1.
    G. Berry and G. Gonthier. The ESTEREL programming language:Design, semantics and implementation. Science of Computer Programming, 19(2):87–152, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F.S. de Boer and M. Gabbrielli. Modeling Real-time in Concurrent Constraint Programming. In J. Lloyd editor, Proc. Int'l Logic Programming Symposium, ILPS'95. The MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F.S. de Boer and C. Palamidessi. A Fully Abstract Model for Concurrent Constraint Programming. In S. Abramsky and T.S.E. Maibaum, editors, Proc. of TAPSOFT/CAAP, LNCS 493 pages 296–319. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F.S. de Boer and C. Palamidessi. Embedding as a tool for language comparison. Information and Computation, 108(1):128–157, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Brookes. A fully abstract semantics of a shared variable parallel language. In Proc. of LICS, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Falaschi, M. Gabbrielli, K. Marriott and C. Palamidessi. Confluence and concurrent constraint programming. In Proc. AMAST 95, LNCS 936, pages 531–545. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Giacobazzi, C. Palamidessi and F. Ranzato. Weak Relative Pseudo-Complements of Closure Operators, em Algebra Universalis, 36(3): 405–412, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Halbwachs, P. Caspi, and D. Pilaud. The synchronous programming language LUSTRE. In Special issue on Another Look at Real-time Systems, Proceedings of the IEEE, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, pages 231–274, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Henkin, J.D. Monk, and A. Tarski. Cylindric Algebras (Part I). North-Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Let Guernic, M. Let Borgue, T. Gauthier, and C. Let Marie. Programming real time applications with SIGNAL. In Special issue on Another Look at Real-time Systems, Proceedings of the IEEE, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Jaffar and M. J. Maher. Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming, 19/20, pp. 503–581, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Marriott and M. Oderski. A Confluent calculus for concurrent constraint programming with guarded choice. In Proc. CP'95 Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Panangaden and V. Shanbhogue. The expressive power of Indeterminate Dataflow Primitives. Information and Computation 98(1), 99–131, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Y. Shapiro. The family of concurrent logic programming languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(3):412–510, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V.A. Saraswat and M. Rinard. Concurrent constraint programming. In Proc. of seventeenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 232–245. ACM, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V.A. Saraswat, R. Jagadeesan, and V. Gupta Foundations of Timed Concurrent Constraint Programming. In S. Abramsky editor, Proc. of the Ninth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 71–80. IEEE Computer Press, July 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    V.A. Saraswat, R. Jagadeesan, and V. Gupta Default Timed Concurrent Constraint Programming. In Proc. of POPL 95, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V.A. Saraswat, M. Rinard, and P. Panangaden. Semantic Foundation of Concurrent Constraint Programming. In Proc. Eighteenth Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM, pages 333–353, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gert Smolka. The Oz Programming Model. In Jan van Leeuwe editor, Computer Science Today, vol. 1000 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank de Boer
    • 1
  • M. Gabbrielli
    • 2
  • M. C. Meo
    • 3
  1. 1.Universiteit UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Universitá di PisaItaly
  3. 3.Universitá di L'AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations