Causal Semantics for the Algebra of Connectors

(Extended Abstract)
  • Simon Bliudze
  • Joseph Sifakis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5382)


The Algebra of Connectors Open image in new window is used to model structured interactions in the BIP component framework. Its terms are connectors, i.e. relations describing synchronization constraints between the ports of component-based systems. Connectors are structured combinations of two basic synchronization protocols between ports: rendezvous and broadcast. They are generated from the ports of P by using a binary fusion operator and a unary typing operator. Typing associates with terms (ports or connectors) synchronization types: trigger or synchron.

In a previous paper, we studied interaction semantics for Open image in new window which defines the meaning of connectors as sets of interactions. This semantics reduces broadcasts into the set of their possible interactions and thus blurs the distinction between rendezvous and broadcast. It leads to exponentially complex models that cannot be a basis for efficient implementation. Furthermore, the induced semantic equivalence is not a congruence.

For a subset of Open image in new window , we propose a new causal semantics that does not reduce broadcast into a set of rendezvous and explicitly models the causal dependency relation between triggers and synchrons. The Algebra of Causal Trees Open image in new window formalizes this subset. It is the set of the terms generated from interactions on the set of ports P, by using two operators: a causality operator and a parallel composition operator. Terms are sets of trees where the successor relation represents causal dependency between interactions: an interaction can participate in a global interaction only if its parent participates too. We show that causal semantics is consistent with interaction semantics. Furthermore, it defines an isomorphism between Open image in new window and the set of the terms of Open image in new window involving triggers.

Finally, we define for causal trees a boolean representation in terms of causal rules.


Causal Chain Parallel Composition Process Algebra Interaction Scheme Causal Tree 
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. 1.
    Balarin, F., Watanabe, Y., Hsieh, H., Lavagno, L., Passerone, C., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Metropolis: An integrated electronic system design environment. IEEE Computer 36(4), 45–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balasubramanian, K., Gokhale, A., Karsai, G., Sztipanovits, J., Neema, S.: Developing applications using model-driven design environments. IEEE Computer 39(2), 33–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eker, J., Janneck, J., Lee, E., Liu, J., Liu, X., Ludvig, J., Neuendorffer, S., Sachs, S., Xiong, Y.: Taming heterogeneity: The Ptolemy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1), 127–144 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: The algebra of connectors — Structuring interaction in BIP. In: Proceeding of the EMSOFT 2007. Salzburg, Austria, pp. 11–20. ACM SigBED (October 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernardo, M., Ciancarini, P., Donatiello, L.: On the formalization of architectural types with process algebras. In: SIGSOFT FSE. pp. 140–148 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spitznagel, B., Garlan, D.: A compositional formalization of connector wrappers. In: ICSE, pp. 374–384. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fiadeiro, J.L.: Categories for Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruni, R., Lanese, I., Montanari, U.: A basic algebra of stateless connectors. Theor. Comput. Sci. 366(1), 98–120 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arbab, F.: Abstract behavior types: a foundation model for components and their composition. Sci. Comput. Program. 55(1-3), 3–52 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2006). pp. 3–12 (invited talk) (September 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sifakis, J.: A framework for component-based construction. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM05). pp. 293–300 ( September 2005) (keynote talk)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Maraninchi, F., Rémond, Y.: Argos: an automaton-based synchronous language. Computer Languages 27, 61–92 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes, 1985. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nowak, D.: Synchronous structures. Inf. Comput. 204(8), 1295–1324 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Bliudze
    • 1
  • Joseph Sifakis
    • 1
  1. 1.VERIMAG, Centre ÉquationGièresFrance

Personalised recommendations