Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 303–319 | Cite as

Responsiveness and stable revivals

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Individual components in an inter-operating system require assurance from other components both of appropriate functionality and of suitable responsiveness. We have developed properties which capture the notion of non-blocking responsive behaviour, together with machine-based checks implemented in the CSP model-checker, FDR. In this paper we illustrate the use of our responsiveness properties with a small example, and provide a detailed comparison to related work in CCS. This work has led to the discovery of a new semantic model for CSP with respect to which such properties are fully abstract. We present the new stable revivals model and discuss implications for responsiveness checking.

Keywords

Responsiveness CSP Semantic model Model-checking 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Abr96]
    Abrial J-R (1996) The B-Book: assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [AM98]
    Abrial J-R, Mussat L (1998) Introducing dynamic constraints in B. In: Bert D (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd International B Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer LNCS, 1393, pp 83–128Google Scholar
  3. [AANT01]
    Amla N, Allen E, Namjoshi K, Trefler R (2001) Assume-guarantee based compositional reasoning for synchronous timing diagrams. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer LNCS, 2031, pp 465–479Google Scholar
  4. [BL03]
    Bolton C, Lowe G (2003) On the automatic verification of non-standard measures of consistency. In: 6th International workshop on formal methods, DublinGoogle Scholar
  5. [But92]
    Butler MJ (1992) A CSP approach to action systems. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, DPhil thesisGoogle Scholar
  6. [But00]
    Butler MJ (2000) A practical approach to combining CSP and B. Formal Asp Comput 12(3):182–198MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [BL05]
    Butler M, Leuschel M (2005) Combining CSP and B for specification and property verification. In: FM05, Springer LNCS, 3582, pp 221–236Google Scholar
  8. [ET05]
    Evans N, Treharne H (2005) Linking semantic models to support CSP||B consistency checking. In: Proceedings of the AVoCS05, ENTCS, 145. Available at URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710661Google Scholar
  9. [FHRR04]
    Fournet C, Hoare CAR, Rajamani SK, Rehof J (2004) Stuck-free conformance. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV’04), Springer LNCS, 3114, pp 242–254Google Scholar
  10. [FSE97]
    Formal systems (Europe) Ltd. (1997) Failures divergence refinement: user manual and tutorial. Available at URL: http://www.fsel.com/documentation/fdr2/html.Google Scholar
  11. [Hoa85]
    Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [HH98]
    Hoare CAR, He J (1998) Unifying theories of programming. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  13. [LHL04]
    Liu Z, He J, Li X (2004) Contract-oriented development of component systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP international conference on theoretical computer science, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 349–366Google Scholar
  14. [Mor90]
    Morgan CC (1990). Of wp and CSP. In: Gries D, Feijen WHJ, van Gasteren AGM, Misra J (eds) Beauty is our business: a birthday salute to Edsger W Dijkstra. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. [Muk93]
    Mukkaram A (1993) A refusal testing model for CSP. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, DPhil ThesisGoogle Scholar
  16. [OH83]
    Olderog ER, Hoare CAR (1986) Specific ation-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Informatica 23:9–66MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Phi87]
    Phillips I (1987) Refusal testing. Theor Comput Sci 50:241–284MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Ros98]
    Roscoe AW (1998) The theory and practice of concurrency. Prentice Hall Series in Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  19. [Ros03]
    Roscoe AW (2003) On the expressive power of CSP refinement. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International workshop on automated verification of critical systems (AVoCS03)Google Scholar
  20. [Ros06]
    Roscoe AW (2006) Revivals, stuckness and responsiveness. In preparationGoogle Scholar
  21. [RS01]
    Reed JN, Sinclair JE (2001) Combining independent specifications. In: Proceedings of the ETAPS-FASE2001, Springer LNCS 2029, pp 45–59Google Scholar
  22. [RSR04]
    Reed JN, Sinclair JE, Roscoe AW (2004) Responsiveness of Interacting Components. Formal Asp Comput 16(4):394–411MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [ST05]
    Schneider S, Treharne H (2005) CSP theorems for communicating B machines. Formal Asp Comput 17:390–422MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [TS00]
    Treharne H, Schneider S (2000) How to drive a B machine. In: Proceedings of the ZB2000, Springer LNCS, 1878, pp 188–209Google Scholar
  25. [WC02]
    Woodcock J, Cavalcanti A (2002) The semantics of circus. In: Proceedings of the ZB2002, Springer LNCS, 2272, pp 184–203Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyArmstrong Atlantic State UniversitySavannahUSA
  2. 2.Computing LaboratoryUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations