Final Semantics for Event-Pattern Reactive Programs
Event-pattern reactive programs are front-end programs for distributed reactive components that preprocess an incoming stream of event stimuli. Their purpose is to recognize temporal patterns of events that are relevant to the serviced program and ignore all other events, outsourcing some of the component’s complexity and shielding it from event overload. Correctness of event-pattern reactive programs is essential, because bugs may result in loss of relevant events and hence failure to react appropriately.
We introduce PAR, a specification language for event-pattern reactive programs. We propose a new approach for defining such languages in terms of observations and actions. This approach applies standard techniques from coalgebra to obtain instances of the corecursion and coinduction principles. Corecursion is used to formally de.ne the operational semantics of PAR, and coinduction allows to prove general equivalences between (ground and parameterized) PAR programs.
This is the first of a series of papers in which we study questions of expressive completeness, complexity, and formal verification techniques for specification languages of event-pattern reactive programs.
KeywordsOperational Semantic Formal Semantic Input Symbol Adequacy Condition Silent State
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aguilera, M.K., Strom, R.E., Sturman, D.C., Astley, M., Chandra, T.D.: Matching events in a content-based subscription system. In: Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 53–61 (1999)Google Scholar
- 4.Cîrstea, C.: Semantic constructions from the specification of objects. Theoretical Computer Science 260 (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Goguen, J., Malcolm, G.: A hidden agenda. Theoretical Computer Science 245(1) (2000)Google Scholar
- 6.Goldin, D.Q.: Persistent Turing Machines as a model of interactive computation. In: Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, Burg, Germany, February 2000, pp. 116–135 (2000)Google Scholar
- 8.Antony, C., Hoare, R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)Google Scholar
- 9.Hunleth, F., Cytron, R., Gill, C.: Building customizable middleware using aspect oriented programming. In: Workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns (OOPSLA 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
- 11.Kleene, S.C.: Representation of events in nerve nets and finite automata. In: Shannon, C.E., McCarthy, J. (eds.) Automata Studies, vol. (34), pp. 3–41. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1956)Google Scholar
- 14.Roşu, G.: Hidden Logic. PhD thesis, University of California at San Diego (2000)Google Scholar
- 17.Sánchez, C., Slanina, M., Sipma, H.B., Manna, Z.: Expressive completeness of an event-pattern reactive programming language (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
- 18.Schmidt, D.C., Levine, D.L., Harrison, T.H.: The design and performance of a real-time CORBA object event service. In: Proc. of OOPSLA 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
- 19.Segall, B., Arnold, D.: Elvin has left the building: A publish/subscribe notification service with quenching. In: Queensland AUUG Summer Technical Conference, Brisbane, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
- 20.Sharp, D.: Reducing avionics software cost through component based product line development. In: Proc. of the Software Technology Conference (1998)Google Scholar