M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of the 16th Intern. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP'89, LNCS 372, pages 1--17, 1989.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....1. Introduction The theory of games, traditionally related to the economic theoretic environment (see for instance [19] has been attracting the interest of many researchers in computer science. The notion of a game naturally arises in the verification of reactive systems and program synthesis [1, 20]. In the compositional approach, a reactive system is seen as a set of interacting components, each of them is modeled as an open system (that is, a system whose behavior depends on the current state as well as the behavior of the environment in which it is embedded) The interaction between a ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of the 16th Intern. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP'89, LNCS 372, pages 1--17, 1989.

....systems under weak assumptions about faults. The timed extension of this work is in [9] Some directions for future work include proving completeness of the preservation laws, extending the framework to specify and reason about graceful degradation and relating the notions of realisability [1] and fault monotonicity. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Mathai Joseph for valuable comments on this work. I am grateful to Zhou Chaochen and Chris George for support. ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. LNCS, 372:1--17, 1989.

....semantics, and this makes it possible to reason about and to compare what different groups of agents (coalitions) can accomplish with a contract if they work together. Preprint submitted to Elsevier Preprint Our syntax for contracts can be seen as a generalisation of Dijkstra s guarded commands [1], and the predicate transformer semantics gives us access to the concepts and methods of the refinement calculus [2,6,12] When we consider a specific contract and a specific coalition, the question of correctness reduces to proving the existence of a winning strategy, and we have earlier shown ....

.... of correctness reduces to proving the existence of a winning strategy, and we have earlier shown how this can be handled in terms of correctness and refinement [4 6] The idea of considering a system as a game between two players has also been considered by, e.g. by Abadi, Lamport, and Wolper [1]. However, the way that we can reason about different coalitions formed from an arbitrary number of agents is an important generalisation. We use simply typed higher order logic as the logical framework in the paper. The type of functions from a type 6 to a type 0 is denoted by 6 0 and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G.A. Rozenberg et al. (editors), Proc. 16th ICALP, volume 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1--17, Stresa, Italy, 1989, Springer--Verlag.

....by the goal. When several goals are assigned to the same agent, the actual transition system of that agent will generally be stronger than required by any single goal. Our notion of realizability can be viewed as the counterpart at the goal level of the notion of realizable program specification [Aba89]; a specification there is said to be realizable if there exists a program that implements it. There are however two important differences: our notion of realizability explicitly refers to the variables monitored and controlled by the agent, and we require the existence of a transition system ....

.... however two important differences: our notion of realizability explicitly refers to the variables monitored and controlled by the agent, and we require the existence of a transition system whose behaviors are equal to the set of histories admitted by the goal, whereas only inclusion is required in [Aba89]. 4. IDENT IFYING UNREAL IZ ABILITY PROBLEM S Our aim now is to check whether a goal is realizable by some agent. If the goal is realizable, the agent may be candidate for responsibility assignment; if it is not, goal refinement should proceed further until realizable subgoals are reached. An ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport and P. Wolper, "Realizable and Unrealizable Specifications of Reactive Systems", Proc 16th ICALP, 1989, LNCS 372, pp. 1-17.

....Chinese Dim Sun restaurant. Our notion of contracts is based on the refinement calculus [3, 6, 18] We have earlier extended the original notion of contracts to consider coalitions of agents [8] Here we combine contracts and the idea of considering a system as a game between two players [1, 20, 5, 21] with the idea of temporal properties in a predicate transformer setting [14, 19] 1 The paper first introduces the notion of contracts, both informally and with a precise operational semantics, in Section 2. Action systems are described as a special kind of contracts, and we give three examples ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. A. et al., editor, Proc. 16th ICALP, pages 1--17, Stresa, Italy, 1989. Springer-Verlag.

.... of correctness reduces to proving the existence of a winning strategy, and we have earlier shown how this can be handled in terms of correctness and refinement [4, 5, 6] The idea of considering a system as a game between two players has also been considered by, e.g. by Abadi, Lamport, and Wolper [1]. However, the way that we can reason about different coalitions formed from an arbitrary number of agents is an important generalisation. We use simply typed higher order logic as the logical framework in the paper. The type of functions from a type Sigma to a type Gamma is denoted by Sigma ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G.A. Rozenberg et al. (editors), Proc. 16th ICALP, volume 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1--17, Stresa, Italy, 1989, Springer--Verlag.

....and distributed (variables that can be read by other processes but written only by one) We solve the particular problem of synthesizing a process from a temporal logic formula for both synchronous and asynchronous parallel execution 1 . These results extend, unify, and simplify previous work [PR89a, PR89b, ALW89]. Next, we solve the problem of synthesizing a scheduler , which controls a collection of processes so as to satisfy a specification. For example, a critical region between two processors could be enforced through a scheduling strategy instead of explicit synchronization written into the ....

....of their variables simultaneously. Their solution was also quite complicated, especially in the asynchronous case. Abadi, Lamport and Wolper did consider shared variables, but their computers had the ability to observe every change made to the state, including all changes made by the environment [ALW89]. This is inappropriate for asynchronous parallelism, since in reality an implementation can base its actions only on the state changes that it can observe by reading variables. It does not have full observability of the entire system. Our implementations use only information directly inferable ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, P. Wolper, "Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems", International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1989, Springer-Verlag

....fewer faults than the maximum to occur, applying admissible transitions to specify them. But without separating design constraints (transitions which are admissible but unnecessary) and environment assumptions (transitions which model faults) MPL cannot, without risking realizability problems [1, 2], support refinement towards an increasing number of faults. As new design decisions are made and the need for new hardware or the higher reliability arise, it may be necessary to tolerate new faults that could not have been anticipated earlier. For untimed systems and unlimited resources, this ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. LNCS, 372:1--17, 1989.

....and further development. Since then, a number of papers provided alternative proofs of the above mentioned problems and dealt with various safety and liveness specifications as well as more general finite state machine specifications of the desired behavior K, just to mention few [NYY92, ALW89, TW88, CDK93] Supervisory control theory [RW89] belongs to the category of the follow up approaches. Even though it was originally developed for regular languages, it has since been extended for languages [Ram89] This theory is also grounded in the formal language theory but is presented in a ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive sytems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science V 372, Automata, Languages and Programming, 1989.

....parts for modification of reactive system specifications Masahiko Tomoishi Naoki Yonezaki Department of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology 1 Introduction A reactive system is a system that maintains interactions with its environment. Therefore it is necessary for realizability[1][2] of its specification that the reactive system can keep reacting correctly to any kind of its environment behavior. Temporal logics have been studied as a language for describing reactive system specifications[3] 4] and a realizability judgment method for temporal specifications and a program ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, P. Wolper, Realizable and Unrealizable Specifications of Reactive Systems, Lecture Note in Computer Science 372, (1989) 1-17.

....way similar to that of process algebras such as CSP [7] and CCS [8] A particularly interesting situation arises when our agent is the environment or user of some system and the other agents are parts of the system. This view of a system as a game has been considered by Abadi, Lamport, and Wolper [1]. A more thorough investigation of the notion of contracts, games, and refinement is presented in a forthcoming book by the authors [4] ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. A. et al., editor, Proc. 16th ICALP, pages 1--17, Stresa, Italy, LNCS vol. 372, 1989, Springer--Verlag.

....to the theory of nondeterministic automata and the nondeterministic programs of Floyd [7] Broy in [6] discusses the use of demonic and angelic nondeterminism with respect to concurrency. Some applications of angelic nondeterminism are shown by Ward and Hayes in [10] Adabi, Lamport, and Wolper in [1] study realizability of specifications, considering them as determined games, where the system plays against the environment and wins if it produces a correct behavior. Specifications are identified with the properties that they specify, and no assumptions are made about how they are written. ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proceedings of 16th ICALP, volume 372 of LNCS, pages 1--17, Stresa, Italy, 11--15 July 1989. Springer-Verlag.

....determined from a description of the game. A description of an enumeration game is a pair (n; F ) where n is the size and F the winning formula of the game. 3 Some examples The idea of modelling infinite behaviours of systems with infinite games is widespread in the literature, among others in [BL69, ALW89, Mos89, PR89, WD91, NYY92, NY92, TW94, MPS95]. Infinite games are mainly used to solve Church s problem [Chu63] of synthesizing processes (or automata) from a specification of the infinite input output behaviour. We give some examples for the application of enumeration games in reactive systems. It is demonstrated how aspects of the infinite ....

Martin Abadi, Leslie Lamport, Pierre Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of 16th Int'l Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol. 372, pages 1--17. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

....Pneuli [16] except the work of Ravn et al. 21] which uses a real time interval logic. Furthermore, they deal only with closed systems, that is, systems that do not operate in an environment. Research to date that deals only with closed systems have failed to consider the issue of realizability [1], which has foundations similar to the issue of controllability [20] Generally, a specification is unrealizable because it prevents the environment for doing something. But, generally, all the events of the environment are uncontrollable, that is, the environment cannot be under the control of a ....

....something. But, generally, all the events of the environment are uncontrollable, that is, the environment cannot be under the control of a physical system. Therefore, the specification is not implementable, which renders the verification and synthesis under this framework potentially meaningless [1]. It should be noted that, among the previous works based on temporal logics, few tackled synthesis problems [11] 13] all the remainder considered verification problems. The original synthesis problem formulated by Ramadge and Wonham [20] and investigated in the context of automaton based ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of 16th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 1--17, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 372, Springer-Verlag, 1989.

....by the factorial of the number of states of the Muller automaton defining the game. In fact, there have been relatively few papers on applications of the game theoretical approach to the construction of correct reactive programs; among the sparse examples are the works of Abadi, Lamport and Wolper [ALW89] and Pnueli and Rosner [PR89] The purpose of the present paper is to prove the first lower bounds on the size of strategy automata and to exhibit some special cases of game specifications (by automata) where polynomials are both an upper and a lower bound for the size of strategy automata. This ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. Ausiello et al., editor, Automata, Languages, and Programming, volume 372 of LNCS, pages 1 -- 17, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1989. Springer-Verlag.

....synthesis from automaton specifications; we also discuss some examples based on an implementation. The foundations of finite state program synthesis were laid in the work of Buchi and Landweber [BL69] Papers exploiting further the approach include Pnueli, Rosner [PR89] Abadi, Lamport, Wolper [ALW89], and Nerode, Yakhnis, Yakhnis [NYY92] Recently, the paradigm of program synthesis has attracted increasing attention in the context of discrete event Institut fur Informatikund Praktische Mathematik, Christian Albrechts Universitat Kiel, D 24098 Kiel, email: fnb, hel, ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. Ausiello et al., editor, Automata, Languages, and Programming, volume 372 of LNCS, pages 1 -- 17, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1989. Springer-Verlag.

....between a property and a controlled agent set that can enforce it. Moreover, they isolated safety properties as a specific domain of receptive properties that can be preserved under composition. Receptiveness is also strongly related to the concepts of realizable and unrealizable properties [AW89] Intuitively, a rule is receptive if a system can enforce that rule regardless of environment actions. In general, any rule that can be violated by a sequence of environment actions is nonreceptive because no strategy of the system can prevent the violation from happening. A safety rule that ....

....and the environment respectively. The disjointness of the controller and environment agent sets implies that they always execute in some interleaving pattern and never in parallel. Both agent sets can be reduced to a single agent each, representing all disjoint controller and environment actions [AW89] The following definitions introduce the notion of system behavior in this semantic model. Definition 2.3 A behavior prefix is a sequence s 0 a 1 Gamma s 1 a 2 Gamma s 2 : where each s i is a state and each a i is an agent that modifies the system state s i Gamma1 into s i . A ....

Martin Abadi and Leslie Lamportand Pierre Wolper. "Realizable and Unrealizable Specifications of Reactive Systems". Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 372:1--17, 1989.

....systems under weak assumptions about faults. The timed extension of this work is in [9] Some directions for future work include proving completeness of the preservation laws, extending the framework to specify and reason about graceful degradation and relating the notions of realisability [1] and fault monotonicity. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Mathai Joseph for valuable comments on this work. I am grateful to Zhou Chaochen and Chris George for support. ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. LNCS, 372:1--17, 1989.

....players. The decision who wins is provided by a set S of plays (given by the specification, and containing plays with certain desirable properties) If for any choice of actions by the environment the program builds up a play in S, it is correct with respect to S. This approach was pursued in [ALW89], PR89] among others (for more background and references we recommend [NYY92a] However, the theory of infinite games still lacks a development regarding applications as this has been achieved for finite state program verification. Especially more efficient algorithms for the construction of ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, P. Wolper, Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems, in: Proc. 17th ICALP (G. Ausiello et al., eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 372 (1989), Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1989, pp. 1-17.

....of a reactive system S and a finite set F of Streett S constraints. The corresponding live reactive system (S; F ) is defined as in the case of structures. The problem of checking if a finite state Streett reactive system is receptive is computationally hard (exponential in the number of states) [3, 12]. By contrast, it can be checked in polynomial time if a finite state Streett reactive system is locally receptive. First, each Streett constraint can be checked individually for local receptiveness. Second, the locality check of a single Streett constraint can be set up as a finite game. Let S be ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. Automata, Languages, and Programming, LNCS 372, pp. 1--17. Springer, 1989.

....a more technical point of view. Finally, we conclude in Section 10. 2. Related Work A great deal of research in the areas of artificial intelligence (Dean et al. 1995; Barbeau, Kabanza, St Denis, 1995; Drummond Bresina, 1990) control theory (Ramadge Wonham, 1989) and program synthesis (Abadi, Lamport, Wolper, 1989; Pnueli Rosner, 1989) focuses on the problem of automatically generating reactive plans for discrete event reactive systems. Usually, the behaviors of a reactive agent are described by a state transition system. The purpose of a reactive plan is to select the agent s actions that must be ....

....execution of a reactive module. Given a temporal logic formula expressing the desired behaviors for a reactive system, one constructs a tree automaton that accepts trees that are models of the formula. Then, a reactive module is obtained from the tree automaton. The approach of Abadi et al. (Abadi et al. 1989) is quite similar, but the input specification is a state transition system instead of a temporal formula. Each of the above approaches has its limitations, virtues, and applications. For instance, the fixpoint calculation algorithm is limited by the fact that it requires the entire state ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Abadi, M., Lamport, L., & Wolper, P. (1989). Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. 16th Int. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pp. 1--17.

....satisfying the specification. Hence, in this framework, strategy construction amounts to program synthesis and deciding if there exists a winning strategy for player 0 is equivalent to the problem of realizability of specifications of reactive systems. These problems were studied for example in [1, 4, 14, 17]. In all these applications an important question is how much memory a strategy may need. As an example from automata theory, consider the complementation lemma for automata on infinite trees. There, in the construction of the automaton accepting the complement of the language, one takes as states ....

M. ABADI, L. LAMPORT AND P. WOLPER, Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems, in: Proc. 16th Int. Coll. Automata, Languages and Programming, LNCS 372 (1989) 1--17.

....As a consequence, a restriction of Omega P which detects any trace going out of Exe is an observer of E(P ) Another consequence is that (O; I) Omega E(P ) is the most general reactive machine satisfying P . Notice that Exe can be empty, which means that P is not realizable in the sense of [3]: There is no machine on (I; O) preserving P against any environment. Conclusion Many ideas that have been presented are specializations and simplifications of previous works. For instance: ffl The specification of properties by means of a synchronous observer is very close to the approach of ....

....care sets considered in hardware design and verification [4, 12] are also a way of expressing assumptions about the environment. ffl The synthesis problems considered in Sections 4 and 5 have been dealt with in several papers both in control theory [32, 33, 19] and in computer science [30, 3] and often extended to cope with liveness properties. Our simplifications consist in considering safety properties of synchronous systems. They are suggested by the application field we have in mind: The synchronous model has been shown to be very convenient for the design of reactive systems. ....

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. Ausiello, M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, and S. Ronchi Della Rocca, editors, 16th ICALP, pages 1--17. LNCS 372, Springer Verlag, July 1989.

....be computed from a description of the game. A description of an enumeration game is a pair (n; F ) where n is the size and F the winning formula of the game. 3 Some Examples The idea of modelling infinite behaviours of systems with infinite games is widespread in the literature, among others in [BL69, ALW89, Mos89, PR89, WD91, NYY92, NY92, TW94, MPS95]. Infinite games are mainly used to solve Church s problem [Chu63] of synthesizing processes (or automata) from a specification of the infinite input output behaviour. We give some examples for the application of enumeration games in reactive systems. It is demonstrated how aspects of the infinite ....

Martin Abadi, Leslie Lamport, Pierre Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of 16th Int'l Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol. 372, pages 1--17. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

....environment satisfies the assumptions. 6 In this paper we address only the first issue, that of proving that the requirements are implied by the process specifications, and ignore the other two important issues of consistency and realizability. A clear overview of these latter issues appears in [2]. Finally, our approach to proving correctness may be characterized as an exogenous approach. A gen 6 For instance, in the case of the specifications of the gate and the controller given in the next section, the antecedents for the two liveness properties serve this purpose. eral deductive ....

Abadi M, Lamport L, Wolper P, Realizable and Unrealizable Specifications of Reactive Systems, Proc 16 th ICALP, 1989, LNCS 372, pp 1-17.

....if the environment satisfies the assumptions. 6 In this paper, we address only the first issue, that of proving that the requirements are implied by the specifications, and ignore the other two important issues of consistency and realizability. A clear overview of these latter issues appears in [2]. Finally, our approach to proving correctness may be characterized as an exogenous approach. A general deductive system (embodied in this case by our decision procedure) is uniformly used in all proofs. Contrast this with the endogenous approach which is the style of choice in proving the ....

Abadi M, Lamport L, Wolper P, Realizable and Unrealizable Specifications of Reactive Systems, Proc 16 th ICALP, 1989, LNCS 372, pp 1-17.

No context found.

Abadi, M., Lamport, L., and Wolper, P. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Automata, Languages and Programming (July 1989), G. Ausiello, M. DezaniCiancaglini, and S. R. D. Rocca, Eds., vol. 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1--17.

....an action is not important; what matters is whether the agent belongs to the system or the environment. Thus, if we are dealing with a single specification, we could assume just two agents, a system agent and an environment agent, as was done by Barringer, Kuiper, and Pnueli in [5] and by us in [2]. However, for composing specifications, one needs more general sets of agents, as introduced in [13] where agents were called actions ) It may help the reader to think of the agents as elementary circuit components or individual machine language instructions. However, the actual identity of ....

....which he called local D consistency in his thesis [26] The special case corresponding to our definition of receptiveness was not considered in the thesis, but did appear in his unpublished thesis proposal. Dill independently developed the notion of receptiveness and introduced its name [8] In [2], a concept of realizability was defined in which O (f) included all outcomes, rather than just fair ones. By eliminating unfair outcomes, we are preventing the environment from ending the game by taking an infinite number of steps in a single move. Allowing such an infinite move, in which the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Abadi, M., Lamport, L., and Wolper, P. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Automata, Languages and Programming (July 1989), G. Ausiello, M. DezaniCiancaglini, and S. R. D. Rocca, Eds., vol. 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1--17.

....an action is not important; what matters is whether the agent belongs to the system or the environment. Thus, if we are dealing with a single specification, we could assume just two agents, a system agent and an environment agent, as was done by Barringer, Kuiper, and Pnueli in [5] and by us in [2]. However, for composing specifications, one needs more general sets of agents, as introduced in [13] where agents were called actions ) It may help the reader to think of the agents as elementary circuit components or individual machine language instructions. However, the actual identity of ....

....which he called local D consistency in his thesis [26] The special case corresponding to our definition of receptiveness was not considered in the thesis, but did appear in his unpublished thesis proposal. Dill independently developed the notion of receptiveness and introduced its name [8] In [2], a concept of realizability was defined in which O (f) included all outcomes, rather than just fair ones. By eliminating unfair outcomes, we are preventing the environment from ending the game by taking an infinite number of steps in a single move. Allowing such an infinite move, in which the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Abadi, M., Lamport, L., and Wolper, P. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Automata, Languages and Programming (July 1989), G. Ausiello, M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, and S. R. D. Rocca, Eds., vol. 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1--17.

....action is not important; what matters is whether the agent belongs to the system or the environment. Thus, if we are dealing with a single specification, we could assume just two agents, a system agent and an environment agent, as was done by Barringer, Kuiper, and Pnueli in [BKP86] and by us in [ALW89]. However, for composing specifications, one needs more general sets of agents, as introduced in [Lam83a] where agents were called actions ) It may help the reader to think of the agents as elementary circuit components or individual machine language instructions. However, the actual identity ....

....called local D consistency in his thesis [Sta84] The special case corresponding to our definition of receptiveness was not considered in the thesis, but did appear in his unpublished thesis proposal. Dill independently developed the notion of receptiveness and introduced its name [Dil88] In [ALW89], a concept of realizability was defined in which O (f) included all outcomes, rather than just fair ones. By eliminating unfair outcomes, we are preventing the environment from ending the game by taking an infinite number of steps in a single move. Allowing such an infinite move, in which the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Mart'in Abadi, Leslie Lamport, and Pierre Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. Ausiello, M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, and S. Ronchi Della Rocca, editors, Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1--17. SpringerVerlag, July 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of the 16th Intern. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP'89, LNCS 372, pages 1--17, 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of the 16th Intern. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP'89, LNCS 372, pages 1--17, 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of 16th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 372 of LNCS, pages 1--17. Springer Verlag, 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. 16th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming, 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In G. Ausiello, M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, and S. R. D. Rocca, editors, Proc. 16th International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP'89), volume 372 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1--17. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of 16th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 372 of LNCS, pages 1--17. Springer Verlag, 1989.

No context found.

M. Abadi, L. Lamport, and P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In Proc. of 16th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 372 of LNCS, pages 1--17. Springer Verlag, 1989.

No context found.

ALW M. Abadi, L. Lamport, P. Wolper, Realizable and Unrealizable Specifications of Reactive Systems, in Proc. 16th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 1989, Springer LNCS 372, 1989, 1--17.

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