Process Algebra versus Axiomatic Specification of a Real-Time Protocol
In this paper we present two different approaches used in specifying a well-known audio control protocol with real-time characteristics. The first approach is based on Circal, a process algebra that permits a natural representation of timing properties and the analysis of interesting aspects of timing systems. The second approach is based on the Timed Interval Calculus, a set-theoretical notation for concisely expressing properties of timed intervals. The comparison between the two approaches shows that they are almost complementary: the former allows an easy modelling of the most procedural aspects of the protocol and provides a fully automatic proof but cannot catch all timing aspects; the latter allows easy modelling of all timing properties but the proof is quite hard and cannot be fully automated. This suggests a decomposition of the proof into subproofs to be performed in different proof environments.
KeywordsParallel Composition Process Algebra Left Endpoint Receiver Clock Input Message
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. Bengtsson, W. Griffioen, K. Kristoffersen, K. Larsen, F. Larsson, P. Pettersson, and W. Yi. Verification of an audio control protocol with bus collision. In 8th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’96), volume 1102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
- 2.D. Bosscher, I. Polak, and F. Vaandrager. Verification of an audio control protocol. In 3rd School and Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems (FTRTFTS’94), volume 863 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 170–192. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
- 3.A. Cerone. Axiomatisation of an interval calculus for theorem proving. Technical Report 05-00, Software Verification Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, Jan 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.A. Cerone, A. J. Cowie, G. J. Milne, and P. A. Moseley. Description and verification of a time-sensitive protocol. Technical Report CIS-96-009, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia, 1996.Google Scholar
- 8.C. Daws and S. Yovine. Two examples of verification of multirated timed automata with Kronos. In 7th 1995 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, Pisa, Italy, 1995. IEEE Comp. Soc.Google Scholar
- 10.W. Griffioen. Proof-checking an audio control protocol with LP. Technical Report CS-R9570, CWI, Department of Software Technology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct 1995.Google Scholar
- 11.P.-H. Ho and H. Wong-Toi. Automated analysis of an audio control protocol. In 7th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’95), volume 939 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 381–394. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
- 12.C. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
- 13.K. Larsen, P. Pettersson, and W. Yi. Diagnostic model-checking for real-time systems. In 4th DIMACS Workshop on Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems, New Brunswick, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
- 14.G. J. Milne. Formal Specification and Verification of Digital Systems. McGraw Hill, 1994.Google Scholar
- 15.Verification of a time-dependent protocol (web page). http://www.acrc.unisa.edu.au/doc/circal/circal_protocol.html.