Safe Realizability of High-Level Message Sequence Charts*

  • Markus Lohrey
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2421)

Abstract

We study the notion of safe realizability for high-level message sequence charts (HMSCs), which was introduced in [2]. We prove that safe realizability is EXPSPACE-complete for bounded HMSCs but undecidable for the class of all HMSCs. This solves two open problems from [2]. Moreover we prove that safe realizability is also EXPSPACEcomplete for the larger class of transition-connected HMSCs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Alur, K. Etessami, and M. Yannakakis. Inference of message sequence charts. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000), Limerick (Ireland), pages 304–313. ACM Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Alur, K. Etessami, and M. Yannakakis. Realizability and verification of MSC graphs. In Proceedings of the 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2001), Crete (Greece), number 2076 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 797–808. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Alur and M. Yannakakis. Model checking of message sequence charts. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 99), Eindhoven (The Netherlands), number 1664 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 114–129. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Ben-Abdallah and S. Leue. Syntactic detection of process divergence and nonlocal choice in message sequence charts. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’97), Enschede (The Netherlands), number 1217 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 259–274, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 30(2):323–342, 1983.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Caillaud, P. Darondeau, L. Hélouët, and G. Lesventes. HMSCs as partial specifications... with Petri nets as completion. In Modelling and Verification of Parallel Processes (MOVEP), Nantes (France), number 2067 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 125–152, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Diekert and G. Rozenberg, editors. The Book of Traces. World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Genest, A. Muscholl, H. Seidl, and M. Zeitoun. Infinite-state high-level MSCs: Model-checking and realizability. to appear in Proceedings of the 29th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2002), Malaga (Spain), 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Gunter, A. Muscholl, and D. Peled. Compositional message sequence charts. In T. Margaria and W. Yi, editors, Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 7th International Conference (TACAS), Genova (Italy), volume 2031 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 496–511. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Hélouët and C. Jard. Conditions for synthesis of communicating automata from HMSCs. In 5th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS), Berlin (Germany), 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Hélouët and P. Le Maigat. Decomposition of message sequence charts. In 2nd Workshop on SDL and MSC (SAM 2000), Grenoble (France), pages 46–60, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. G. Henriksen, M. Mukund, K. N. Kumar, and P. Thiagarajan. Regular collections of message sequence charts. In U. Montanari, J. D. P. Rolim, and E. Welzl, editors, Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium onMathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’2000), Bratislava, (Slovakia), number 1893 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 675–686. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ITU. Recommendation Z.100. Specification and Description Language (SDL). 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ITU. Recommendation Z.120. Message Sequence Charts. 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Morin. Recognizable sets of message sequence charts. In H. Alt and A. Ferreira, editors, Proceedings of the19th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2002), Juan les Pins (France), number 2285 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 523–534. Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Muscholl and D. Peled. Message sequence graphs and decision problems on Mazurkiewicz trace. In M. Kutylowski, L. Pacholski, and T. Wierzbicki, editors, Proceedings of the 24th Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’99), Szklarska Poreba (Poland), number 1672 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 81–91. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. von Bochmann. Finite state description of communication protocols. Computer Networks, 2:361–372, 1978.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Walukiewicz. Difficult configurations— on the complexity of LTrL. In Proceedings of the25th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 98), Aalborg (Denmark), number 1443 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 140–151. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Zielonka. Notes on finite asynchronous automata. R. A. I. R. O.— Informatique Théorique et Applications, 27:99–135, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Lohrey
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations