Advertisement

Abstract

We explore the features of rewriting logic and the language Maude as a logical and semantic framework for representing both the semantics of CCS, and a modal logic for describing local capabilities of CCS processes. Although a rewriting logic representation of the CCS semantics was given previously, it cannot be directly executed in the default interpreter of Maude. Moreover, it cannot be used to answer questions such as which are the successors of a process after performing an action, which is used to define the semantics of the modal logic. Basically, the problems are the existence of new variables in the righthand side of the rewrite rules and the nondeterministic application of the semantic rules, inherent to CCS. We show how these problems can be solved by exploiting the reflective properties of rewriting logic, which allow controlling the rewriting process. This executable specification plus the reflective control of the rewriting process can be used to analyze CCS processes.

Keywords

Modal Logic Operational Semantic Semantic Rule Semantic Framework Local Capability 
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.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Bruni. Tile Logic for Synchronized Rewriting of Concurrent Systems. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Clavel. Reflection in General Logics and in Rewriting Logic with Applications to the Maude Language. PhD thesis, University of Navarre, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Clavel, F. Duran, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, N. Marti-Oliet, J. Meseguer, and J. Quesada. Maude: Specification and Programming in Rewriting Logic. SRI International, Jan. 1999, revised Aug. 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Clavel, F. Duran, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, N. Marti-Oliet, J. Meseguer, and J. Quesada. Using Maude. In Proc. FASE 2000, LNCS 1783. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The Concurrency Workbench: A semantics-based tool for the verification of finite-state systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15 (1): 36–72, Jan. 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Hennessy and R. Milner. Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. Journal of the ACM, 32 (1): 137–161, Jan. 1985.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    N. Marti-Oliet and J. Meseguer. Rewriting logic as a logical and semantic framework. Technical Report SRI-CSL-93–05, SRI International, 1993. To appear in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Meseguer. Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science, 96: 73–155, 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Quemada, editor. Final committee draft on Enhancements to LOTOS. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG7 Project 1.21.20.2.3., May 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M.-O. Stehr and J. Meseguer. Pure type systems in rewriting logic. In Proc. of LFM’99: Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages, France, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Stirling. Modal and temporal logics for processes. In Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs Automata, LNCS 1043, pages 149–237. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. Verdejo and N. Marti-Oliet. Executing and verifying CCS in Maude. Technical Report 99–00, Dpto. Sistemas Informâticos y Programación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Feb. 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Verdejo
    • 1
  • Narciso Martí-Oliet
    • 1
  1. 1.Depto. de Sistemas Informáticos y ProgramaciónUniversidad Complutense de MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations