S. Abramsky, S.J. Gay and R. Nagarajan, Specification structures and propositions -as-types for concurrency. In: Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata. Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science(Springer 1996)  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....interfaces which are local to two fixed agents, meaning that interaction can be modelled by composition. Dataflow networks [74, 33] as studied in Ch. 8 are classical examples of locally interacting systems. Local interaction has been advocated lately through the interaction semantics programme [6, 4, 5, 3] as the right setting for studying typed concurrency, opening up to a Curry Howard paradigm for concurrency. Others. The list above is far from complete. Among other distinctions and aspects of behaviour are: deterministic versus non deterministic (or probabilistic) systems, asynchronous 9 ....

Samson Abramsky, Simon Gay, and Rajagopal Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In F. Moller and G. Birtwistle, editors, Proc. of the VIIIth Ban# Higher Order Workshop, LNCS. Springer, 1995.

....like a particularly promising technique for integrating a concurrency model into a programming language. For instance, we could devise new type systems that guarantee safety and liveness properties in the same way that traditional type systems guarantee safety in calling functions and procedures [AGN96] Challenge: Design usable, safe, and secure languages incorporating a well understood concurrency model. The need for such languages is particularly urgent now that mobile agents or applets have started to roam the Internet. Currently, mobile agents are written in languages such as Java, ....

S. Abramsky, S. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-astypes for concurrency. In F. Moller and G. Birtwistle, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. SpringerVerlag, 1996.

....formalisation is to provide a nice and convenient way to relate our work with event structures [22] Indeed, category theory is a convenient formalism for relating models. We show that the category of signals can be related to the category of event structures by a pair of specification structures [2]. Moreover, we show that this category is Cartesian closed. This property suggests that a synchronous lambda calculus could 18 DAVID NOWAK be defined by ways of the category of signals, and could be used to give a denotational semantics in synchronous structures for our previous work on ....

....states that the occurrence of x implies the simultaneous occurrence of x 0 . Event structures have a conflict relation which does not exist between signals. This conflict relation can be seen as an enrichment of the category of signals that we will model with a pair of specification structures [2]. Specification Structures. Specification structures formalise the idea of enriching a semantic universe with a refined notion of property. Let C be a category. A specification structure S over C is defined by the following data: a set PA of properties over A , for each object A of C, a ....

Samson Abramsky, Simon J. Gay and Rajagopal Nagarajan. Specification Structures and Propositions-asTypes for Concurrency. In Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata---Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

.... plus hiding [Abr94, AJ94a, Abr96b] where = and ( 1 The identities are the copycat strategies as in [AJ94a, Abr96b] We can then obtain the simple category of games described in [Abr96b] by applying a specification structure in the sense of [AGN96b] to ( in which the properties over ( are the prefix closed subsets of ( the safety properties [AP93] which in this context are the game trees. 2 # Tr inl inr id U X,Y k # k k k X,U X,U k Y x R R R G G G # G M M # M # cf. stochastic kernels Pfn Pfn PInj PInj PInj Rel ....

....model of interaction. Such a category might be relevant to the study of hybrid systems [PS95] We shall, very briefly, sketch some further developments from this point. We can associate correctness properties with the rudimentary types of ( in the setting of specification structures [AGN96b]. Types can then carry strong correctness information, and the type inference rule for composition : Resumptions Geometry of Interaction 5.2 Modelling types and functions 5.3 State and concurrency becomes a compositional proof rule for process interaction. See [Abr93, Abr95b, AGN96a, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Abramsky, S. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In

....compilation with respect to the time complexity seems to have some common idea with our parameterized logical predicates. Another interesting direction is to combine our approach to other techniques of specifying properties of semantic categories, for instance that of specification structures [1]. We also note that an application of parameterized logical predicates for models of full propositional classical linear logic is found in Streicher s work [41] see Example 3.9) Some of the results in this paper have appeared in a preliminary version [23] where only the cases of intuitionistic ....

Abramsky, S., Gay, S.J., and Nagarajan, R. (1996), Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency, in "Proceedings, 8th Banff Higher Order Workshop", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1043, pp. 5--40, Springer-Verlag.

....of the programs, and the types give a communicating protocol with some semantic information. The development of more flexible type systems that take some account of the structure and the behavior of the programs is an interesting problem, addressed now by different perspectives, as for example in [AGN95, Nie95, LW95, Pie95]. ....

S. Abramsky, S. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In F. Moller and G. Birtwistle, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata - Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop. Springer-Verlag LNCS, 1995.

No context found.

S. Abramsky, S.J. Gay and R. Nagarajan, Specification structures and propositions -as-types for concurrency. In: Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata. Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science(Springer 1996)

....of subsystems becomes more complex. Interaction between components may take the form of a prolonged, dynamic pattern of communication rather than a simple procedure call, and both parties must agree about the expected nature of the dialogue. Our recent research on interaction categories [1, 2] has led to a framework for the design of sophisticated type systems which are able to specify communication protocols of this form. In this framework, type checking and verification are seen as different facets of a single activity and this opens up the possibility of developing a ....

....interface consisting of a number of typed ports. The structure of the category allows ports to be combined in various ways, and the shape of interfaces to be described. Our approach to the construction of type systems for concurrency is to begin with a simple interaction category such as ASProc [2, 3], in which the types correspond to very basic safety specifications, and use a specification structure [2] to add information to the types so that they specify stronger properties. This process can be iterated, leading to a tower of categories sharing a great deal of structure and possessing ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Abramsky, S. J. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In G. Birtwistle and F. Moller, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata---Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....of subsystems becomes more complex. Interaction between components may take the form of a prolonged, dynamic pattern of communication rather than a simple procedure call, and both parties must agree about the expected nature of the dialogue. Our recent research on interaction categories [1, 2] has led to a framework for the design of sophisticated type systems which are able to specify communication protocols of this form. In this framework, type checking and verification are seen as different facets of a single activity and this opens up the possibility of developing a ....

....interface consisting of a number of typed ports. The structure of the category allows ports to be combined in various ways, and the shape of interfaces to be described. Our approach to the construction of type systems for concurrency is to begin with a simple interaction category such as ASProc [2, 3], in which the types correspond to very basic safety specifications, and use a specification structure [2] to add information to the types so that they specify stronger properties. This process can be iterated, leading to a tower of categories sharing a great deal of structure and possessing ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Abramsky, S. J. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In G. Birtwistle and F. Moller, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata---Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....such as Signal [26] and Lustre [27] and systolic algorithms [22] Finally we compare our theory with other approaches, and discuss current limitations and possibilities for further developments. For a more general discussion of the methodological issues relating to specification structures, see [2]. 2 Specification Structures The notion of specification structure, at least in its most basic form, is quite anodyne, and indeed no more than a variation on standard notions from category theory. Nevertheless, it provides an alternative view of these standard notions which is highly suggestive, ....

....on an asynchronous version of the theory, by applying the sets of processes approach to the asynchronous interaction category ASProc [6] The result is a category of deadlock free processes in which the global synchrony condition is not present. Preliminary versions of this work have appeared in [2,23] and improved versions in [9,39] a full report of this area will be the subject of a future paper. Beyond the issues of synchrony and a formal syntax, there are two respects in which our theory of deadlock freedom is restrictive. First, we have not yet addressed the issue of mobility [37,38] ....

S. Abramsky, S. J. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In G. Birtwistle and F. Moller, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata---Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

No context found.

S. Abramsky, S.J. Gay and R. Nagarajan, Specification structures and propositions -as-types for concurrency. In: Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata. Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science(Springer 1996)

....of subsystems becomes more complex. Interaction between components may take the form of a prolonged, dynamic pattern of communication rather than a simple procedure call, and both parties must agree about the expected nature of the dialogue. Our recent research on interaction categories [1, 2] has led to a framework for the design of sophisticated type systems which are able to specify communication protocols of this form. In this framework, type checking and verification are seen as different facets of a single activity and this opens up the possibility of developing a ....

....static connection topologies can be described; none of our work on interaction categories has yet tackled the issue of mobility. We hope to address this in future work. Our approach to the construction of type systems for concurrency is to begin with a simple interaction category such as ASProc [2, 3], in which the types correspond to very basic safety specifications, and use a specification structure [2] to add information to the types so that they specify stronger properties. This process can be iterated, leading to a tower of categories sharing a great deal of structure and possessing ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Abramsky, S. J. Gay, and R. Nagarajan. Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In G. Birtwistle and F. Moller, editors, Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata---Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Higher Order Workshop, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC