Testing Semantics: Connecting Processes and Process Logics

  • Dusko Pavlovic
  • Michael Mislove
  • James B. Worrell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4019)


We propose a methodology based on testing as a framework to capture the interactions of a machine represented in a denotational model and the data it manipulates. Using a connection that models machines on the one hand, and the data they manipulate on the other, testing is used to capture the interactions of each with the objects on the other side: just as the data that are input into a machine can be viewed as tests that the machine can be subjected to, the machine can be viewed as a test that can be used to distinguish data. This approach is based on generalizing from duality theories that now are common in semantics to logical connections, which are simply contravariant adjunctions. In the process, it accomplishes much more than simply moving from one side of a duality to the other; it faithfully represents the interactions that embody what is happening as the computation proceeds.

Our basic philosophy is that tests can be used as a basis for modeling interactions, as well as processes and the data on which they operate. In more abstract terms, tests can be viewed as formulas of process logics, and testing semantics connects processes and process logics, and assigns computational meanings to both.


Boolean Algebra Turing Machine Algebra Homomorphism Logical Connection Pushdown Automaton 
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.
    Moore, E.F.: Gedanken experiments on sequential machines. In: Automata Studies, Princeton, pp. 129–153 (1956)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Software Series. Prentice Hall, London (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Principles and methods of testing finite state machines - A survey. Proceedings of the IEEE 84, 1090–1126 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mislove, M., Ouaknine, J., Pavlovic, D., Worrell, J.: Duality for labelled Markov processes. In: Walukiewicz, I. (ed.) FOSSACS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2987, pp. 393–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pavlovic, D., Smith, D.R.: Composition and refinement of behavioral specifications. In: Automated Software Engineering 2001. The Sixteenth International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pavlovic, D., Smith, D.R.: Guarded transitions in evolving specifications. In: Kirchner, H., Ringeissen, C. (eds.) AMAST 2002. LNCS, vol. 2422, pp. 411–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pavlovic, D., Pepper, P., Smith, D.R.: Colimits for concurrent collectors. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 568–597. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobs, B.: Trace semantics for coalgebras. In: Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science (CMCS) 2004. Electr. Notes in Theor. Comp. Sci., vol. 106 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasuo, I., Jacobs, B.: Context-free languages via coalgebraic trace semantics. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Harman, N.A., Roggenbach, M., Rutten, J. (eds.) CALCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3629, pp. 213–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnstone, P.: Stone Spaces. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abramsky, S.: Domain theory in logical form. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 51, 1–77 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milner, R.: Communication and concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, London (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rutten, J.: Behavioral differential equations: a coinductive calculus of streams, automata and power series. Theor. Comp. Sci. 308, 1–53 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glabbeek, R., Smolka, S.A., Steffen, B.: Reactive, generative, and stratified models of probabilistic processes. Inf. Comput. 121(1), 59–80 (1995)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeNicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34, 83–133 (1984)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abramsky, S.: A domain equation for bisimulation. Information and Computation 92, 161–218 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rutten, J.: Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems. Theor. Comp. Sci. 249, 3–80 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plotkin, G.D., Turi, D.: Towards a mathematical operational semantics. In: Proceedings of LICS, vol. 308, pp. 280–291 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kupke, C., Kurz, A., Pattinson, D.: Ultrafilter extensions for coalgebras. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Harman, N.A., Roggenbach, M., Rutten, J. (eds.) CALCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3629, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bonsangue, M., Kurz, A.: Duality for logics of transition systems. In: Sassone, V. (ed.) FOSSACS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3441, pp. 455–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Varacca, D.: The powerdomain of indexed valuations. In: Proceedings 17th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dusko Pavlovic
    • 1
  • Michael Mislove
    • 2
  • James B. Worrell
    • 3
  1. 1.Kestrel InstitutePalo Alto
  2. 2.Tulane UniversityNew Orleans
  3. 3.Oxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations