Operational Semantics for Fun and Profit
Abstract
The FDR refinement-checking tool, available free for academic purposes. [5] relies fundamentally upon the congruences between operational and denotational semantics for CSP, in order to determine a denotational property by exploring an operationally presented system. But the calculation of the standard structured operational semantics of complex systems proves a bottleneck in the performance of the tool, and so we compile a custom inference system for each case, optimised for facilitating execution of the relevant queries. Recent developments have revealed how these calculations can be re-used in restructuring systems to maximise the potential for hierarchical compression and for export to a related probabilistic formalism.
Keywords
Operational Semantic Successor State Label Transition System Denotational Semantic Hide ActivityPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Brookes, S.D., Roscoe, A.W.: An improved failures model for communicating processes. In: Brookes, S.D., Winskel, G., Roscoe, A.W. (eds.) Seminar on Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 197, pp. 281–305. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
- 2.Brookes, S., Roscoe, B., Walker, D.: An operational semantics for CSP. Technical report, Oxford University Programming Resarch Group (1986)Google Scholar
- 3.Goldsmith, M.: CSP: The best concurrent-system description language in the world – probably (extended abstract). In: East, I., Martin, J., Welch, P., Duce, D., Green, M. (eds.) Communicating Process Architectures 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
- 4.Goldsmith, M., Moffat, N., Roscoe, B., Whitworth, T., Zakiuddin, I.: Watchdog transformations for property-oriented model-checking. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 600–616. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd. FDR2 manual (1998), http://www.formal.demon.co.uk/fdr2manual/
- 6.PRobabilistIc Symbolic Model checker, http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dxp/prism/.
- 7.QinetiQ, Birmingham University, Formal Systems, and Oxford University. FORWARD: A Future of Reliable Wireless Ad-hoc networks of Roaming Devices, http://www.forward-project.org.uk
- 8.Roscoe, A.W.: A mathematical theory of communicating processes. DPhil, Oxford University Programming Research Group (1982)Google Scholar
- 9.Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency, p. xv+565. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998) ISBN 0-13-6774409-5Google Scholar
- 10.Roscoe, A.W., Gardiner, P.H.B., Goldsmith, M.H., Hulance, J.R., Jackson, D.M., Scattergood, J.B.: Hierarchical compression for model-checking CSP or How to check 1020 dining philosophers for deadlock. In: Proceedings of TACAS Symposium, Aarhus, Denmark (1995)Google Scholar
- 11.Ryan, P.Y.A., Schneider, S.A., Goldsmith, M.H., Lowe, G., Roscoe, A.W.: The Modelling and Analysis of Security Protocols: the CSP Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Valmari, A., Kervinen, A.: Alphabet-based synchronisation is exponentially cheaper. In: Brim, L., Jančar, P., Křetínský, M., Kucera, A. (eds.) CONCUR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2421, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Zakiuddin, I., Moffat, N., Goldsmith, M., Whitworth, T.: Property based compression strategies. In: Proceedings of Second Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems (AVoCS 2002), April 2002, University of Birmingham (2002)Google Scholar