scholarly journals Extend Atomic Action Definitions of DDL to Support Occlusions and Conditional Post-conditions

2010 ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Liang Chang ◽  
Zhongzhi Shi ◽  
Tianlong Gu
Keyword(s):  
Atomic Action

A study of atomic action schemes intended for standard Ada

1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-44
Author(s):  
A Romanovsky
Keyword(s):  
Atomic Action

Levels of atomic action in the Flagship parallel system

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. R. Mayes ◽  
J. A. Keane
Keyword(s):  
Parallel System ◽  
Atomic Action

Speedy X-Ray Bursts Reveal Atomic Action

Science News ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 156 (20) ◽  
pp. 310
Author(s):  
Peter Weiss
Keyword(s):  
X Ray ◽  
Atomic Action

Tools for probing `atomic' action [electron microscopes]

IEEE Spectrum ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 38-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Atomic Action ◽  
Electron Microscopes

A Hierarchy of System Descriptions via Atomic Linear Refinement

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 289-336
Author(s):  
Roberto Gorrieri
Keyword(s):  
Proof System ◽  
Weak Equivalence ◽  
Levels Of Abstraction ◽  
Complete Proof ◽  
Transition Systems ◽  
Action Refinement ◽  
Atomic Action ◽  
Description Languages ◽  
Different Levels

The problem of relating system descriptions at different levels of abstraction is studied in the field of Process Description Languages, following the so-called interleaving approach. Since we believe that several different languages should be used profitably during the hierarchical specification process, we investigate the problem of implementing a calculus into another one. As a case study, we introduce a pair of languages which will be increasingly enriched. The basic languages are sequential and nondeterministic; their first enrichment is obtained by adding an operator for asynchrony; then also communication is added, and finally restriction is dealt with. For each pair, the latter language extends the former with atomicity, obtained by adding to the signature of the former an operator of strong prefixing that makes atomic the execution of a sequence of actions. The two languages are intended to be a specification and an implementation language, respectively. To directly relate them, a mapping, called atomic linear refinement, is introduced from actions of the former to atomic sequences (i.e. sequences of actions built with strong prefixing) of the latter. An atomic linear refinement can be homomorphically extended to become a mapping among process terms of the two languages and thus also among the states of their associated transition systems. A notion of implementation, based on a sort of bisimulation (parametric with respect to an atomic action refinement), relates processes of the two languages. Given a specification process p and an atomic action refinement ρ, the refined process ρ(p) is proved to be an implementation of p. Moreover, a complete proof system for strong and weak equivalence are presented for both languages (and thus also for the operator of strong prefixing) and proved consistent with respect to refinement: if p and ρ are congruent processes of the specification language, then ρ(p) and ρ(q) are congruent, too.

TOWARDS HIERARCHICAL DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS: A PROOF SYSTEM FOR STRONG PREFIXING

1990 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. 277-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERTO GORRIERI ◽  
UGO MONTANARI
Keyword(s):  
Proof System ◽  
Simple Extension ◽  
Levels Of Abstraction ◽  
Complete Proof ◽  
Proof Systems ◽  
Action Refinement ◽  
Atomic Action ◽  
Description Languages ◽  
Different Levels

The problem of relating system descriptions at different levels of abstraction is addressed in the context of process description languages. As a case study, we introduce two nondeterministic languages. The latter is a simple extension of the former and is obtained by adding to its signature an operator of strong prefixing for making atomic the execution of a sequence of actions. The two languages are intended to be a specification and an implementation language, respectively. To directly relate them, we introduce a mapping, called atomic action refinement, from actions of the former to atomic sequences (i.e. sequences of actions built with strong prefixing) of the latter, which can be homomorphically extended to become a mapping among process terms of the two languages. A notion of implementation, based on a sort of bisimulation (parametric with respect to an atomic action refinement), relates processes of the two languages. Given a specification process P and an atomic action refinement ρ, the refined process ρ(P) is proved to be an implementation of P. Moreover, two complete proof systems for the two languages (and thus also for the operator of strong prefixing) are presented and proved consistent with respect to refinement: if P and Q are congruent processes of the specification language, then ρ(P) and ρ(Q) are congruent, too.

scholarly journals A Complete Equational Axiomatization for Prefix Iteration with Silent Steps

1995 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Aceto ◽  
Anna Ingólfsdóttir
Keyword(s):  
Process Algebra ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Subject Classification ◽  
Ams Subject Classification ◽  
Star Operation ◽  
Atomic Action ◽  
Keywords And Phrases ◽  
Bisimulation Equivalence

Fokkink ((1994) Inf. Process. Lett. 52: 333{337) has recently proposed a complete<br />equational axiomatization of strong bisimulation equivalence for MPA_delta^*(A_tau),<br />i.e., the language obtained by extending Milner's basic CCS with prefix iteration.<br />Prefix iteration is a variation on the original binary version of the Kleene star operation<br />p*q obtained by restricting the first argument to be an atomic action. In this<br />paper, we extend Fokkink's results to a setting with the unobservable action by<br />giving a complete equational axiomatization of Milner's observation congruence over<br />MPA_delta^*(A_tau ). <br />The axiomatization is obtained by extending Fokkink's axiom system<br />with two of Milner's standard tau-laws and the following three equations that describe<br />the interplay between the silent nature of tau and prefix iteration:<br />tau . x = tau*x<br />a*(x+tau.y) = a*(x+tau.y + a.y)<br />tau.(a*x) = a*(tau.a*x) .<br />Using a technique due to Groote, we also show that the resulting axiomatization is<br />omega-complete, i.e., complete for equality of open terms.<br />AMS Subject Classification (1991): 68Q40, 68Q42.<br />CR Subject Classification (1991): D.3.1, F.3.2, F.4.2.<br />Keywords and Phrases: Minimal Process Algebra, prefix iteration, equational<br />logic, omega-completeness, observation congruence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document