Action refinement and property inheritance in systems of sequential agents

  • Michaela Huhn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1119)


For systems of sequential agents the fundamental relations between events — causality and conflict — are naturally connected to a global dependency relation on the system's alphabet. Action refinement as a strictly hierarchical approach to system design should preserve this connection. Then it can be guaranteed that also more complex temporal properties of the refined system are inherited from the abstract level. The behaviour of a system of sequential agents is given in terms of synchronisations structures, a location-based subclass of prime event structures. The action refinement operator inherits causality and conflict according to the dependency relation. To express temporal properties of the systems we use vTrPTL, a linear time temporal logic for Mazurkiewicz traces. The logical framework, based on local modalities and fixpoints, allows to define refinement transformation on formulae. Under certain constraints on the refinement function, satisfaction of a formula for the abstract system turns out to be equivalent to satisfaction of the transformed formula for the refined system.


Regular Expression Causal Chain Distinct Family Local View Refinement Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AH94]
    Luca Aceto and Matthew Hennessy. Adding action refinement to a finite process algebra. Information and Computation, 115:179–247, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [BBLS92]
    S. Bensalem, A. Bouajjani, C. Loiseaux, and J. Sifakis. Property preserving simulations. In Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 663, pages 260–273, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [CGL92]
    Edmund M. Clarke, Orna Grumberg, and David E. Long. Model checking and abstraction. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 92), 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [DD93]
    Philippe Darondeau and Pierpaolo Degano. Refinement of actions in event structures and causal trees. Theoretical Computer Science, 118:21–48, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [GG89]
    R. v. Glabbeek and U. Goltz. Refinement of actions in causality based models. In Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, LNCS 430, p. 267–300, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [GG91]
    Ursula Goltz and Norbert Götz. Modelling a simple communication protocol in a language with action refinement, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [GGR94]
    U. Goltz, R. Gorrieri, and A. Rensink. On syntactic and semantic action refinement. In Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software, LNCS 789, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [GKP92]
    Ursula Goltz, Ruurd Kuiper, and Wojciech Penczek. Propositional temporal logics and equivalences. In CONCUR'92, LNCS 630, pages 222–236, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [GMM90]
    Roberto Gorrieri, Sergio Marchetti, and Ugo Montanari. A2CCS: atomic actions for CCS. Theoretical Computer Science, pages 203–223, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [Huh96]
    Michaela Huhn. On semantic and logical refinement of actions. Technical Report 15/96, Universität Hildesheim, Institut für Informatik, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [JPZ91]
    W. Janssen, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Actions systems and action refinement in the development of parallel systems. In Concur'91, LNCS 527, p. 298–316, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [Lar88]
    Kim G. Larsen. Proof systems for Hennessy-Milner Logic with recursion. In Trees in Algebra and Programming, CAAP, LNCS 299, pages 215–230, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [Maz88]
    A. Mazurkiewicz. Basic notions of trace theory. In Linear Time, Branching time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, LNCS 354, pages 280–323, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [Mil89]
    Robin Milner. Communications and Concurrency. 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [Nie95]
    Peter Niebert. A v-calculus with local views for systems of sequential agents. In MFCS, LNCS 969, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [Ram95]
    R. Ramanujam. A local presentation of synchronizing systems. In Structure in Concurrency Theory (STRICT), pages 264–279, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [Sti92]
    Colin Stirling. Modal and temporal logics. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science. 1992.Google Scholar
  18. [Thi94]
    P.S. Thiagarajan. A trace based extension of Linear Time Temporal Logic. In Proc. of the 9th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [Thi95]
    P.S. Thiagarajan. A trace consistent subset of PTL. In CONCUR '95, LNCS 962, pages 438–452, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. [Vaa89]
    Frits Vaandrager. A simple definition for parallel composition of prime event structures. Cs-r8903, CWI, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. [Vog93]
    Walter Vogler. Bisimulation and action refinement. Theoretical Computer Science, 114:173–200, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. [Weh94]
    Heike Wehrheim. Parametric action refinement. In Concepts, Methods and Calculi, volume A-56 of IFIP Transactions, pages 247–266, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. [Win86]
    Glynn Winskel. Event structures. In Petri Nets: Applications and Relationships to Other Models of Concurrency, LNCS 255, pages 325–392, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Huhn
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität HildesheimGermany

Personalised recommendations