A Notion of Glue Expressiveness for Component-Based Systems
Comparison between different formalisms and models is often by flattening structure and reducing them to behaviorally equivalent models e.g. automaton and Turing machine. This leads to a notion of expressiveness which is not adequate for component-based systems where separation between behavior and coordination mechanisms is essential. The paper proposes a notion of glue expressiveness for component-based frameworks characterizing their ability to coordinate components.
Glue is a closed under composition set of operators mapping tuples of behavior into behavior. Glue operators preserve behavioral equivalence. They only restrict the behavior of their arguments by performing memoryless coordination.
Behavioral equivalence induces an equivalence on glue operators. We compare expressiveness of two glues G 1 and G 2 by considering whether glue operators of G 1 have equivalent ones in G 2 (strong expressiveness). Weak expressiveness is defined by allowing a finite number of additional behaviors in the arguments of operators of G 2.
We propose an SOS-style definition of glues, where operators are characterized as sets of SOS-rules specifying the transition relation of composite components from the transition relations of their constituents. We provide expressiveness results for the glues of BIP and of process algebras such as CCS, CSP and SCCS. We show that for the considered expressiveness criteria, glues of the considered process calculi are less expressive than general SOS glue. Furthermore, glue of BIP has exactly the same strong expressiveness as glue definable by the SOS characterization.
KeywordsParallel Composition Label Transition System Process Algebra Derivation Rule Process Calculus
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Felleisen, M.: On the expressive power of programming languages. In: Jones, N.D. (ed.) ESOP 1990. LNCS, vol. 432, pp. 134–151. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
- 2.Sifakis, J.: A framework for component-based construction. In: 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2005), September 2005, pp. 293–300 (2005) (Keynote talk)Google Scholar
- 3.Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: 4th IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2006), September 2006, pp. 3–12 (2006) (Invited talk)Google Scholar
- 4.Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19. University of Aarhus (1981)Google Scholar
- 5.Bloom, B.: Ready Simulation, Bisimulation, and the Semantics of CCS-Like Languages. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1989)Google Scholar
- 11.Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: The algebra of connectors — Structuring interaction in BIP. In: Proc. of the EMSOFT 2007, October 2007, pp. 11–20. ACM SigBED (2007)Google Scholar