Results

**11 - 16**of**16**### SBMF 2007 A calculus for team automata ⋆

"... Team automata are a formalism for the component-based specification of reactive, distributed systems. Their main feature is a flexible technique for specifying coordination patterns among systems, thus extending I/O automata. Furthermore, for some patterns the language recognized by a team automaton ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Team automata are a formalism for the component-based specification of reactive, distributed systems. Their main feature is a flexible technique for specifying coordination patterns among systems, thus extending I/O automata. Furthermore, for some patterns the language recognized by a team automaton can be specified via those languages recognized by its components. We introduce a process calculus tailored over team automata. Each automaton is described by a process, such that its associated (fragment of a) labeled transition system is bisimilar to the original automaton. The mapping is moreover denotational, since the operators defined on processes are in a bijective correspondence with a chosen family of coordination patterns and that correspondence is preserved by the mapping. We thus extend to team automata a few classical results on I/O automata and their representation by process calculi. Moreover, besides providing a language for expressing team automata, we widen the family of coordination patterns for which an equational characterization of the language associated to a composite automaton can be provided. The latter result is obtained by providing a set of axioms, in ACP-style, for capturing bisimilarity in our calculus.

### Software Tools for Technology Transfer manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Formally Specifying CARA in Java ⋆

"... ..."

(Show Context)
### A calculus for team automata ∗

"... Abstract. Team automata are a formalism for the component-based specification of reactive, distributed systems. Their main feature is a flexible technique for specifying coordination patterns among systems, thus extending I/O automata. Furthermore, for some patterns the language recognized by a team ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

(Show Context)
Abstract. Team automata are a formalism for the component-based specification of reactive, distributed systems. Their main feature is a flexible technique for specifying coordination patterns among systems, thus extending I/O automata. Furthermore, for some patterns the language recognized by a team automaton can be specified via those languages recognized by its components. We introduce a process calculus tailored over team automata. Each automaton is described by a process, and such that its associated (fragment of a) labeled transition system is bisimilar to the original automaton. The mapping is furthermore denotational, since the operators defined on processes are in a bijective correspondence with a chosen family of coordination patterns and that correspondence is preserved by the mapping. We thus extend to team automata a few classical results on I/O automata and their representation by process calculi. Moreover, besides providing a language for expressing team automata, we widen the family of coordination patterns for which an equational characterization of the language associated to a composite automaton can be provided. The latter result is obtained by providing a set of axioms, in ACP-style, for capturing bisimilarity in our calculus. 1.

### Abstract Non-Bisimulation-Based Markovian Behavioral Equivalences

"... The behavioral equivalence that is typically used to relate Markovian process terms and to reduce their underlying state spaces is Markovian bisimilarity. One of the reasons is that Markovian bisimilarity is consistent with ordinary lumping. The latter is an aggregation for Markov chains that is exa ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

(Show Context)
The behavioral equivalence that is typically used to relate Markovian process terms and to reduce their underlying state spaces is Markovian bisimilarity. One of the reasons is that Markovian bisimilarity is consistent with ordinary lumping. The latter is an aggregation for Markov chains that is exact, hence it guarantees the preservation of the performance characteristics across Markovian bisimilar process terms. In this paper we show that two non-bisimulation-based Markovian behavioral equivalences – Markovian testing equivalence and Markovian trace equivalence – induce at the Markov chain level an aggregation strictly coarser than ordinary lumping that is still exact. We then show that only Markovian testing equivalence may constitute a useful alternative to Markovian bisimilarity, as it turns out to be a congruence with respect to the typical process algebraic operators, while Markovian trace equivalence is not a congruence with respect to parallel composition.

### c © M. Bernardo On the Expressiveness of Markovian Process Calculi with Durational and Durationless Actions

, 2010

"... Several Markovian process calculi have been proposed in the literature, which differ from each other for various aspects. With regard to the action representation, we distinguish between integrated-time Markovian process calculi, in which every action has an exponentially distributed duration associ ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

(Show Context)
Several Markovian process calculi have been proposed in the literature, which differ from each other for various aspects. With regard to the action representation, we distinguish between integrated-time Markovian process calculi, in which every action has an exponentially distributed duration associ-ated with it, and orthogonal-time Markovian process calculi, in which action execution is separated from time passing. Similar to deterministically timed process calculi, we show that these two options are not irreconcilable by exhibiting three mappings from an integrated-time Markovian process cal-culus to an orthogonal-time Markovian process calculus that preserve the behavioral equivalence of process terms under different interpretations of action execution: eagerness, laziness, and maximal progress. The mappings are limited to classes of process terms of the integrated-time Markovian process calculus with restrictions on parallel composition and do not involve the full capability of the orthogonal-time Markovian process calculus of expressing nondeterministic choices, thus eluci-dating the only two important differences between the two calculi: their synchronization disciplines and their ways of solving choices. 1