Advertisement

Concurrent testing of processes

  • M. Hennessy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 630)

Abstract

We develop a noninterleaving semantic theory of processes based on testing. We assume that all actions have a non-zero duration and the allowed tests take advantage of this assumption. The result is a semantic theory in which concurrency is differentiated from nondeterminism.

We show that the semantic preorder based on these tests is preserved by so-called “stable” action refinement and may be characterised as the largest such preorder contained in the standard testing preorder.

Keywords

Semantic Theory Operational Semantic Sequential Composition Process Algebra Alternative Characterisation 
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. Full abstraction for series-parallel-pomsets. In Proceedings of CAAP, volume 493 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–25. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [AE91]
    L. Aceto and U. Engberg. Failure semantics for a simple process language with refinement. Technical report, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [AH91a]
    L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Adding action refinement to a finite process algebra. In Proceedings of 18 th ICALP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [AH91b]
    L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Towards action refinement in process algebras. Information and Computation, 1991. to appear.Google Scholar
  5. [AH92]
    L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Termination, deadlock and divergence in process algebras. Journal of the ACM, 39(1):147–187, 1992.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [BC89]
    G. Boudol and I. Castellani. Permutation of transitions: an event structure semantics for CCS and SCCS. In Proceedings of Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, number 354 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 411–427, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [DD89a]
    Ph. Darondeau and P. Degano. About semantic action refinement. Technical Report 11/89, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, 1989. To appear in Fundamenta Informaticae.Google Scholar
  8. [DD89b]
    P. Degano and P. Darondeau. Causal trees. In Proceedings of ICALP 89, number 372 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 234–248. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [DD90]
    P. Darondeau and P. Degano. Event structures, causal trees and refinements, 1990. Submitted to Theoretical Computer Science.Google Scholar
  10. [DH84]
    R. DeNicola and M. Hennessy. Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 24:83–113, 1984.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [DNM90]
    P. Degano, R. De Nicola, and U. Montanari. A partial ordering semantics for CCS. Theoretical Computer Science, 75:223–262, 1990.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Hen88]
    M. Hennessy. An Algebraic Theory of Processes. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [Jat92]
    L. Jategaonkar. Personal communication. 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [JM92]
    L. Jategoankar and A. Meyer. Testing equivalence for petri nets with action refinement. Technical report, MIT, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [Mil89]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [MP91]
    D. Murphy and D. Pitt. Testing, betting and true concurrency. In Proceedings of Concur 91, number 527 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [TV87]
    D. Taubner and W. Vogler. The step failures semantics. In F.J. Brandenburg et. al., editor, Proceedings of STACS 87, number 247 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 348–359. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. [VG90]
    R.J. van Glabbeek. The refinement theorem for ST-bisimulation. In Prooceedings IFIP Working Group, Sea of Galilee, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [VGV87]
    R.J. van Glabbeek and F.W. Vaandrager. Petri net models for algebraic theories of concurrency. In J.W. de Bakker, A.J. Nijman, and P.C. Treleaven, editors, Prooceedings PARLE conference, number 259 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 224–242. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. [Vog90]
    W. Vogler. Bisimulation and action refinement. Technical report, Technische Universität München, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [Vog91a]
    W. Vogler. Failure semantics based on interval semiwords is a congruence for refinement. Distributed Computing, 4:139–162, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Vog91b]
    W. Vogler. Is partial order semantics necessary for action refinement ? Technical report, Technische Universität München, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hennessy
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SussexEngland

Personalised recommendations