G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. In Proceedings of CONCUR  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... logic are derived constructs, implemented in terms of the transition relations, there is no need to include them on the basic level of the proof system rules for treating combinations of program construct and modalities, in contrast to many other approaches to compositional verification [Sti85, Win90, ASW94] For instance the rule below for input under parallel composition, on the system level of the semantics, is derivable: #, S 1 : # 1 # S 1 # s 2 : #, # #, s 1 : #pid v## 1 # s 1 # s 2 : #pid v##, # The rule expresses that if a component system in a parallel composition can ....

....to as the modal calculus) The chosen specification language is frequently a variant of CCS. An excellent introduction to the area can be found in Stirling [Sti01] Early work in the field include numerous algorithms and proof systems for the verification of finite state systems [Sti85, Lar88, Win91, Cle90, SW91] Larsen [Lar88] introduced the concept of local modal checking, i.e. algorithms that considers only the part of the state space reachable from an agent p which is necessary to determine whether a satisfaction p : # holds. Another common topic is compositional proof systems, in order to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. In Proceedings of CONCUR

....the verification process, and for the latter that a minimal semantically equivalent representation of the global system is constructed. This minimal representation can subsequently be used for all kinds of verification. A pure approach to compositional verification has been proposed by Winskel in [Win90], where rules are given to decompose assertions of the form P j= OE depending on the syntax of the program P and the formula OE. Unfortunately, the decomposition rules for processes involving the parallel operator are very restricted. Larsen and Xinxin [LaXi90] follow a similar line, however, ....

G. Winskel. Compositional Checking of Validity on Finite State Processes, Workshop on Theories of Communication, CONCUR, 1990

....of these ideas to verification, nor does he suggest how they can be implemented. Walker [27] demonstrates how to use a preorder plus knowledge of how a system should operate to simplify the verification of bisimulation equivalence. Cleaveland and Steffen [7] use a similar idea. Winskel [28] proposes a method for decomposing specifications into properties which the components of a system must satisfy for the specification to hold. The approach is very appealing, but unfortunately, dealing with parallel composition is difficult. It is not apparent whether any of these methods will ....

G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. Draft copy. 27

....in the number of its parallel components. To overcome this problem techniques have been developed in order to avoid the construction of the complete state graph (cf. BFH90, CLM89, CR94, CS90b, DGG93, Fer88, GL93, GP93, Jos87, KM89, Kru89, LSW94, LT88, LX90, Pnu90, SG89, SG90, Val93, Wal88, Win90, WL89] In this paper we present a method for the compositional minimization of finite state distributed systems, which is practically motivated by the following observation: For the verification of a system it is usually sufficient to consider an abstraction of its global state graph, because ....

....the verification process, and for the latter that a minimal semantically equivalent representation of the global system is constructed. This minimal representation can subsequently be used for all kinds of verification. A pure approach to compositional verification has been proposed by Winskel in [Win90] where rules are given to decompose assertions of the form P j= Phi depending on the syntax of the program P and the formula Phi. Unfortunately, the decomposition rules for processes involving the parallel operator are very restricted. Larsen and Xinxin [LX90] follow a similar line, however, ....

G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. In Workshop on Theories of Communication, CONCUR, 1990.

....and compositional minimisation. In the first methods, the global system need not be considered at all, whereas in the second ones, a minimal semantically equivalent representation of the global system is constructed. A pure approach to compositional verification has been proposed by Winskel in [Win90] where rules are given to decompose assertions of the form P j= Phi depending on the syntax of the program P and the formula Phi . Unfortunately, the decomposition rules for processes involving the parallel operator are very restricted. In order to deal with the problems that arise from ....

G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. In Workshop on Theories of Communication, CONCUR, volume 458 of LNCS, 1990.

....the number of its parallel components. To overcome this problem techniques have been developed in order to avoid the construction of the complete state graph (cf. BFH90, CLM89, CR94, CS90b, DGG93, Fer88, GL93, Jos87, KM89, Kru89, LSW94, LT88, LX90, Pel93, Pnu90, SG89, SG90, Vaa90, Val93, Wal88, Win90, WL89] In this paper we present Correspondence and offprint requests to: Gerald Luttgen. 2 S. Graf, B. Steffen, and G. Luttgen a method for the compositional minimisation of finite state distributed systems , which is practically motivated by the following observation. For the verification ....

....the verification process, and for the latter that a minimal semantically equivalent representation of the global system is constructed. This minimal representation can subsequently be used for all kinds of verification. A pure approach to compositional verification has been proposed by Winskel in [Win90] where rules are given to decompose assertions of the form P j= Phi depending on the syntax of the program P and the formula Phi . Unfortunately, the decomposition rules for processes involving the parallel operator are very restricted. Larsen and Xinxin [LX90] follow a similar line, however, ....

G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. In Workshop on Theories of Communication, CONCUR, volume 458 of LNCS, 1990.

....and producing global states only when required, it is sometimes possible to save significant time and space. The main drawback of these algorithms is that often the entire global state space is generated (for example, when checking that a property holds at every reachable state) Winskel [93] proposes a method for decomposing logical specifications in the propositional calculus into properties which the components of a system must satisfy for the specification to hold. The approach is appealing, but as might be expected, dealing with parallel composition is difficult. In our work, ....

G. Winskel. Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. Draft copy.

No context found.

Winskel, G.: Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. In Workshop on Theories of Communication, CONCUR, volume 458 of LNCS, 1990.

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