M. Boreale, C. Fournet, and C. Laneve (1998), Bisimulations for the JoinCalculus, In Proc. PROCOMET'98, D. Gries and W.P. de Roever (Eds.), 68-86, IFIP, Chapman & Halls.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the outcome and convergence of evaluation. So, with respect to our goal of reasoning about surrogation, we regard must variants of convergence as too strong (see also the testing semantics of the Join Calculus [Lan96] stronger versions of equivalence based on barbed bisimulation can be found in [BFL98] Definition 4.3.1 (Convergence) A closed term a # L 0 converges, written a#, if there is a configuration C with [ a ] # # C and C(t m ) # #, #, v # for some v. This notion of convergence does not mean that the whole computation of term a terminates, but rather that the main ....

M. Boreale, C. Fournet and C. Laneve. Bisimulations for the Join-Calculus. In D. Gries and W.-P. de Roever, eds, Proceedings of PROCOMET '98. International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), Chapman & Hall, 1998.

.... of reasoning about surrogation, we regard Please write titlerunninghead (Shortened) Article Title in file 19 must variants of convergence as too strong (see also the testing semantics of the Join Calculus [13] stronger versions of equivalence based on barbed bisimulation can be found in [2]) Definition 4.1. A closed term a 2 L 0 converges, written a , if there is a configuration C with [ a ] C and C(t m ) h ; v i for some v. This notion of convergence does not mean that the whole computation of term a terminates, but rather that the main task t m does so: the ....

Michele Boreale, C edric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations for the join-calculus. In Gries and de Roever [9].

....the names de ned in D that is exported to the context. The scope of the names in S is unrestricted. The scope of the other names de ned in D is restricted to the process P and to the guarded processes in D. This use of exported names and the construct def S D in P come from the open join calculus [11]. Throughout, we consider only processes P that satisfy the following well formedness conditions which restrict the use of exported names: If a name is exported by a de nition def S D in Q inside P , it cannot be exported by any other de nition in P ; names de ned by D cannot be exported by ....

....in the sense that it does not require any form of handshake or acknowledgment. def S D in P is the process P in the scope of the local de nitions given in D, exporting the set of names S. The set of names S would not appear in the basic joincalculus, but here we are using an open variant [11]. if u = v then P else Q tests whether u = v, and then runs the process P or the process Q depending on the result of the test. P j Q is the parallel composition of the processes P and Q. 0 is the null process, which does nothing. A join pattern is a non empty list of message patterns, ....

Michele Boreale, Cedric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In IFIP Working Conference on Programming Concepts and Methods (PROCOMET'98), pages 68-86. Chapman and Hall, June 1998.

....semantics of the Continuation Passing Style calculus [39] is operationally sound. Calculi similar to L are discussed in [18, 7, 3, 41] Some of the techniques we use in Section 4 are inspired by techniques in [38] Characterisations of barbed congruence on calculi for mobile processes include [4, 8, 3]. However, in these bisimilarity, matching transitions of processes have the same labels, therefore the problems given by restrictions (a) and (b) do not appear. Other studies of barbed congruence, or similar contextual based bisimulations, for mobile processes include [19, 20, 42, 14, 16] and, ....

.... (the process on the right is obtained from the process on the left by performing a step) None of these laws can be proved using encoding hj ji and a or calculus (if the local name a is exported, the encodings of the processes in the laws can be distinguished both in a and calculus) In [8], a labeled bisimulation for the Join calculus is introduced. However, in this bisimulation the labels of the matching transitions must be syntactically the same. Therefore laws like (J2) cannot be proved. 6.5. Full abstraction of [ Sangiorgi [37] introduces a subcalculus of the calculus, ....

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, and C. Laneve. Bisimulations for the Join Calculus. Proc. IFIP Conference PROCOMET'98, 1997.

....Merro and Sangiorgi [18] prove the same equation, without the rst side condition, for barbed congruence in calculus with the locality property. The choice of barbed congruence has two main motivations. First, iit is a uniform basis to dene behavioral equivalences on dioeerent process calculij [6]. Thus it is amenable to comparison with equivalences on and the join calculus. Second, the use of an equivalence that is a bisimulation and a congruence, eases proofs of correctness for programs transformations and interpretations (or encodings) of languages. Nonetheless there is a major ....

.... barbed congruence ( b ) is the biggest bisimulation that preserves simple observations called barbs and that is a congruence [17] For people familiar with bisimulation for , it is a variant of the weak barbed congruence [20] Another related equivalence is the one dened for the join calculus [6]. In particular, the reader should note that, as in Join, we consider the coarsest barbed bisimulation that is a congruence, instead of considering the closure under every context of barbed bisimulation. Nonetheless, the denition of this equivalence does not directly follow from its counterpart. ....

Michele Boreale, C#dric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In D. Gries and W.P. de Roever, editors, Proc. of PROCOMET '98 Programming Concepts and Methods, pages 6886. Chapman & Hall, June 1998.

.... b P (if u 62 fn(P ) 8) rec u:R b def u = R in R (9) x)P ) a b Pfa=xg (10) Two main reasons have motivated our choice to consider barbed congruence for reasonning about blue processes. First, barbed congruence is ia uniform basis to de ne equivalences between dioeerent process calculi j [6], and therefore we can establish comparison with results 8 obtained in other calculi. Second, the choice of a relation that is at the same time a congruence and a bisimulation ease proofs of interpretations and term transformations. Nonetheless there is also a drawback, namely that proofs of ....

Michele Boreale, C#dric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In D. Gries and W.P. de Roever, editors, Proc. of PROCOMET '98 Programming Concepts and Methods, pages 6886. Chapman & Hall, June 1998.

No context found.

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, C. Laneve. Bisimulations in the Join Calculus. Proc. of PROCOMET '98, (D. Gries, W. De Roever, Eds.), Chapman and Hall, 1998.

No context found.

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, and C. Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In PROCOMET'98, pages 68-86. IFIP, Chapman and Hall, June 1998. 34

No context found.

Michele Boreale, Cedric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In IFIP Working Conference on Programming Concepts and Methods (PROCOMET'98), pages 68-86. Chapman and Hall, June 1998. 86

....P # j Q if and only if P # sj Q. Proof: Since every join calculus context is also a sjoin calculus context, it is evident that # sj # # j on join calculus processes. In order to establish that, conversely, # j # # sj , we can rely on a labeled bisimulation # l for the joincalculus [10]. The relation # l respects barbs, and its closure by application of evaluation contexts is easily established (see [10, 17] Therefore, # l is at least as fine as # j and # sj . Moreover, we have that # l = # j [10] In contrast, in 43 the sjoin calculus, # l is strictly more ....

....that # sj # # j on join calculus processes. In order to establish that, conversely, # j # # sj , we can rely on a labeled bisimulation # l for the joincalculus [10] The relation # l respects barbs, and its closure by application of evaluation contexts is easily established (see [10, 17]) Therefore, # l is at least as fine as # j and # sj . Moreover, we have that # l = # j [10] In contrast, in 43 the sjoin calculus, # l is strictly more discriminating than # sj , as # sj equates the processes def key k in x# v k # for all values v. In summary, we have # ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Michele Boreale, Cedric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In IFIP Working Conference on Programming Concepts and Methods (PROCOMET'98), pages 68--86. Chapman and Hall, June 1998. 86

.... have been recently explored in other process calculi by Amadio [2] and Hennessy and Riely [30] for coping with partial failures in distributed systems, and by Boreale et al. for dealing with cryptography [7] Acknowledgments Preliminary results in collaboration with Michele Boreale appeared in [6]. We also thank Jean Jacques L evy, Massimo Merro, Uwe Nestmann, and especially Georges Gonthier for their fruitful comments. ....

Michele Boreale, C'edric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations in the join-calculus. In Proceedings of PROCOMET '98, pages 68--86. IFIP, Chapman and Hall, June 1998.

.... become available, seems to bear some relationship with our set theoretic interpretation: the latter takes into account only minimal traces (those obtained by anticipating output actions as early as possible, according to law TO2) Bisimulation is also used in the context of the join calculus [17, 18, 10], a refinement of the asynchronous calculus enjoying a uniform receptiveness property. An axiomatic presentation of asynchronous transition systems and bisimulation within a syntax free framework is given in [36] In the past, different process languages have been proposed that make explicit ....

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, C. Laneve. Bisimulations in the Join Calculus. Proc. of PROCOMET '98, (D. Gries, W. De Roever, Eds.), Chapman and Hall, 1998.

No context found.

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, and C. Laneve (1998), Bisimulations for the JoinCalculus, In Proc. PROCOMET'98, D. Gries and W.P. de Roever (Eds.), 68-86, IFIP, Chapman & Halls.

No context found.

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, and C. Laneve. Bisimulations for the join-calculus. In Proc. PROCOMET'98. Chapman & Hall, 1998.

No context found.

M. Boreale, C. Fournet, and C. Laneve (1998), Bisimulations for the JoinCalculus, In Proc. PROCOMET'98, D. Gries and W.P. de Roever (Eds.), 68-86, IFIP, Chapman & Halls.

No context found.

Michele Boreale, Cedric Fournet, and Cosimo Laneve. Bisimulations for the join-calculus. In David Gries and Willem-Paul de Roever, editors, Proceedings of PROCOMET '98. IFIP, Chapman & Hall, 1998.

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