Advertisement

Behavioral Theory for Session-Oriented Calculi

  • Ivan Lanese
  • Antonio Ravara
  • Hugo Torres Vieira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6582)

Abstract

This chapter presents the behavioral theory of some of the Sensoria core calculi. We consider SSCC, μ se and CC as representatives of the session-based approach and COWS as representative of the correlation-based one.

For SSCC, μ se and CC the main point is the structure that the session/conversation mechanism creates in programs. We show how the differences between binary sessions, multiparty sessions and dynamic conversations are captured by different behavioral laws. We also exploit those laws for proving the correctness of program transformations.

For COWS the main point is that communication is prioritized (the best matching input captures the output), and this has a strong influence on the behavioral theory of COWS. In particular, we show that communication in COWS is neither purely synchronous nor purely asynchronous.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Parallel Composition Behavioral Theory Label Transition System Program Transformation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amadio, R.M., Castellani, I., Sangiorgi, D.: On bisimulations for the asynchronous pi-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 195(2), 291–324 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambler, S.W.: The Object Primer: Agile Model-Driven Development with UML 2.0. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonelli, E., Compagnoni, A.: Multipoint session types for a distributed calculus. In: Barthe, G., Fournet, C. (eds.) TGC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4912, pp. 240–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boreale, M., Bruni, R., De Nicola, R., Loreti, M.: Sessions and pipelines for structured service programming. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 19–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boreale, M., et al.: SCC: a Service Centered Calculus. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Tennenholtz, M. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 38–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruni, R., Lanese, I., Melgratti, H., Tuosto, E.: Multiparty sessions in SOC. In: Wang, A.H., Tennenholtz, M. (eds.) COORDINATION 2008. LNCS, vol. 5052, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured communication-centred programming for web services. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Lanese, I., Martins, F., Ravara, A., Vasconcelos, V.T.: Bisimulations in SSCC. DI/FCUL TR 07–37, Department of Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Lanese, I., Martins, F., Ravara, A., Vasconcelos, V.T.: Behavioural theory at work: Program transformations in a service-centred calculus. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 59–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34, 83–133 (1984)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Glabbeek, R.J.: The linear time – branching time spectrum I; the semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: Handbook of Process Algebra, ch. 1, pp. 3–99. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001), http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/spectrum1.ps.gz CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: On reduction-based process semantics. Theoretical Computer Science 151(2), 437–486 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: Proc. of POPL 2008, pp. 273–284. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lanese, I., Martins, F., Vasconcelos, V.T., Ravara, A.: Disciplining orchestration and conversation in service-oriented computing. In: Proc. of SEFM 2007, pp. 305–314. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapadula, A., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A calculus for orchestration of web services. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2007), http://rap.dsi.unifi.it/cows/papers/cows-esop07-full.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R., Sangiorgi, D.: Barbed bisimulation. In: Kuich, W. (ed.) ICALP 1992. LNCS, vol. 623, pp. 685–695. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F., Yoshida, N.: On observing dynamic prioritised actions in soc. In: Albers, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Matias, Y., Nikoletseas, S., Thomas, W. (eds.) ICALP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5556, pp. 558–570. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), http://rap.dsi.unifi.it/cows/papers/bis4cows-full.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sangiorgi, D., Walker, D.: On barbed equivalences in pi-calculus. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 292–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sangiorgi, D., Walker, D.: Pi-Calculus: A Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vieira, H.T., Caires, L., Seco, J.C.: The conversation calculus: A model of service-oriented computation. In: Gairing, M. (ed.) ESOP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4960, pp. 269–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Lanese
    • 1
  • Antonio Ravara
    • 2
  • Hugo Torres Vieira
    • 2
  1. 1.Focus TeamUniversità di Bologna/INRIAItaly
  2. 2.CITI and Dep. of Informatics, FCTUniv. Nova de LisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations