Skip to main content
Log in

When is partial trace equivalence adequate?

  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

Two processes arepartial trace equivalent iff they can perform the same sequences of actions in isolation. Partial trace equivalence is perhaps the simplest possible notion of process equivalence. In general, it is too simple: it is not usually an adequate semantics. We investigate the circumstances under which it is adequate, which are surprisingly rich. We give two substantial classes of languages for which partial traces are adequate. In one class, partial trace equivalence suffices for total correctness, and operations such as true sequencing are possible; but all processes are determinate and silent moves are not possible. The other class — which includes many standard process calculi, such as CCS and CSP — admits indeterminacy and silent moves, but partial traces only suffice for partial correctness and true sequencing is not definable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abramsky, S. and Vickers, S.: Quantales, observational logic, and process semantics. Research Report DOC 90/1, Imperial College, London, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barendregt, H.P.:The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics, volume 103 ofStudies in Logic. North-Holland, 1981. Revised Edition, 1984.

  3. Bolognesi, T. and Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS.Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14:25–59, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boudol, G. and Castellani, I.: Permutation of transitions: an event structure semantics for CCS and SCCS. In J.W. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors,REX School/ Workshop on Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, Noordwijkerhout, volume 354 ofLect. Notes in Computer Sci., pages 411–427. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

  5. Bol, R.N. and Groote, J.F.: The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications. Report CS-R9054, CWI, Amsterdam, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R. and Roscoe, A.W.: A theory of communicating sequential processes.J. ACM, 31(3):560–599, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bloom, B., Istrail, S. and Meyer, A.R.: Bisimulation can't be traced (preliminary report). InConference Record of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 229–239, 1988. Also appears as MIT Technical Memo MIT/LCS/TM-345.

  8. Bloom, B., Istrail, S. and Meyer, A.R.: Bisimulation can't be traced. Technical Report TR 90-1150, Cornell, August 1990. (To appear in JACM).

  9. Bergstra, J.A. and Klop, J.W.: Algebra of communicating processes. Technical Report CS-R8421, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bergstra, J.A. and Klop, J.W.: Algebra of communicating processes. In J.W. de Bakker, M. Hazewinkel, and J.K. Lenstra, editors,Mathematics and Computer Science, CWI Monograph 1, pages 89–138. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bloom, B.:Ready Simulation, Bisimulation, and the Semantics of CCS-Like Languages. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 1989.

  12. Bloom, B.: Strong process equivalence in the presence of hidden moves (preliminary report). (Unpublished), July 1990.

  13. Bloom, B. and Meyer, A.R.: Experimenting with process equivalence. In Dr. Marta Kwiatkowska, editor,Proceedings of the International BCS-FACS Workshop on Semantics for Concurrency, pages 189–201, Leicester, U.K., July 1990.

  14. Bloom, B. and Meyer, A.R.: Experimenting with process equivalence. In Dr. Marta Kwiatkowska, editor,Proceedings of the International BCS-FACS Workshop on Semantics for Concurrency, pages 189–201, Leicester, U.K., July 1990.

  15. Dill, D.L.:Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed-Independent Circuits. MIT Press, 1989.

  16. de Nicola, R. and Hennessy, M.C.B.: Testing equivalences for processes.Theoretical Computer Sci., 34(2/3):83–133, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drost, N.J.: Algebraic formulations of trace theory. Technical Report P9004, University of Amsterdam Programming Research Group, July 1990.

  18. de Simone, R.: Higher-level synchronising devices inMeije-SCCS.Theoretical Computer Sci., 37(3):245–267, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Engelfriet, J.: Determinacy → (observation equivalence = trace equivalence).Theoretical Computer Sci., 36(1):21–25, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Glabbeek, R.J. and Goltz, U.: Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. Arbeitspapiere der GMD 366, Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung, Sankt Augustin, 1989. An extended abstract appeared in: Proceedings 14th Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, PorcabkaKozubnik, Poland, August/September 1989 (A. Kreczmar and G. Mirkowska), LNCS 379, Springer-Verlag, pp. 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  21. van Glabbeek, R.J.: The linear time — branching time spectrum. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.W. Klop, editors,Proceedings CONCUR 90, Amsterdam, volume 458 ofLect. Notes in Computer Sci, pages 278–297. Springer-Verlag, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Groote, J.F. and Vaandrager, F.: Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence (extended abstract). In G. Ausiello, M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, and S. Ronchi Della Rocca, editors,Automata, Languages and Programming: 16 th International Colloquium, volume 372 ofLect. Notes in Computer Sci. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

  23. Groote, J.F. and Vaandrager, F.: Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence.Information and Computation, 100(2):202–260, October 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hennessy, M.: Synchronous and asynchronous experiments on processes.Information and Computation, 59(1–3):36–83, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes.Comm. ACM, 21(8):666–677, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kasangian, S., Labella, A. and Petrorossi, A.: Observers, experiments, and agents: A comprehensive approach to parallelism. In I. Guessarian, editor,Semantics of Systems of Concurrent Processes, pages 375–406, 1990. LNCS 469.

  27. Mazurkiewicz, A.: Basic notions of trace theory. InLinear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, volume 112 ofLect. Notes in Computer Sci., pages 25–34. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

  28. Milner, R.: Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony.Theoretical Computer Sci., 25(3):267–310, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Milner, R.:Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, New York, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mislove, M. and Oles, F.: A simple language supporting angelic nondeterminism and parallel composition. (Presented at MFPS 91; to appear in the proceedings).

  31. Plotkin, G.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department, Denmark, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Plotkin, G.D. and Pratt, V.R.: The resolving power of multiple observers (extended abstract). (The final version has not yet appeared, to my knowledge), 1990.

  33. Udding, J.T.: A formal model for defining and classifying delay-insensitive circuits and systems.Distributed Computing, 1:197–204, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vaandrager, F.: Determinism → (event structure isomorphism=step sequence equivalence). Technical Report CS-R8839, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vaandrager, F.: On the relationship between process algebra and input/output automata. (Extended abstract for LICS 91), April 1991.

  36. Vaandrager, F.: On the relationship between process algebra and input/output automata. InSixth annual IEEE symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 387–389. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.

  37. van Glabbeek, R. and Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. In G. X. Ritter, editor,Information Processing 89: Proceedings of the IFIP 11th World Computer Congress, pages 613–618. North-Holland, August 1989.

  38. Walker, D.: Bisimulation and divergence.Information and Computation, 85(2):202–241, April 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bard Bloom.

Additional information

Supported by NSF grant (CCR-9003441)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bloom, B. When is partial trace equivalence adequate?. Formal Aspects of Computing 6, 317–338 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01215409

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01215409

Keywords

Navigation