Advertisement

Interface Input/Output Automata

  • Kim G. Larsen
  • Ulrik Nyman
  • Andrzej Wąsowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4085)

Abstract

Building on the theory of interface automata by de Alfaro and Henzinger we design an interface language for Lynch’s I/O, a popular formalism used in the development of distributed asynchronous systems, not addressed by previous interface research. We introduce an explicit separation of assumptions from guarantees not yet seen in other behavioral interface theories. Moreover we derive the composition operator systematically and formally, guaranteeing that the resulting compositions are always the weakest in the sense of assumptions, and the strongest in the sense of guarantees. We also present a method for solving systems of relativized behavioral inequalities as used in our setup and draw a formal correspondence between our work and interface automata.

Keywords

Composition Operator Transition Relation Software Product Line Maximal Solution Composite Interface 
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.
    Igarashi, A., Kobayashi, N.: A generic type system for the pi-calculus. In: POPL 2001, ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rajamani, S.K., Rehof, J.: Conformance checking for models of asynchronous message passing software. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 166–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, E.A., Xiong, Y.: A behavioral type system and its application in Ptolemy II. Formal Aspects of Computing Journal (special issue on Semantic Foundations of Engineering Design Languages) (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, E.A., Zheng, H., Zhou, Y.: Causality interfaces and compositional causality analysis. In: [22]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), Vienna, Austria, pp. 109–120. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface-based design. In: In Engineering Theories of Software Intensive Systems, proceedings of the Marktoberdorf Summer School. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larsen, K.G., Larsen, U., Wasowski, A.: Color-blind specifications for transformations of reactive synchronous programs. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoare, C.: Communicating Sequential Processes. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maier, P.: Compositional circular assume-guarantee rules cannot be sound and complete. In: Gordon, A.D. (ed.) ETAPS 2003 and FOSSACS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2620, pp. 343–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A modal process logic. In: LICS, pp. 203–210. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.: Alternating refinement relations. In: Sangiorgi, D., de Simone, R. (eds.) CONCUR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1466, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T., Stoelinga, M.I.A.: Timed interfaces. In: Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Sifakis, J. (eds.) EMSOFT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2491, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chakabarti, A., de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Stoelinga, M.I.A.: Resource interfaces. In: Alur, R., Lee, I. (eds.) EMSOFT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2855, pp. 117–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lynch, N.: I/O automata: A model for discrete event systems. In: Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J, pp. 29–38 (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larsen, K.G.: Context Dependent Bisimulation Between Processes. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larsen, K.G.: A context dependent equivalence between processes. Theoretical Computer Science 49, 184–215 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larsen, K.G., Milner, R.: A compositional protocol verification using relativized bisimulation. Information and Computation 99, 80–108 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsen, K.G., Mikucionis, M., Nielsen, B.: Online testing of real-time systems using uppaal. In: Grabowski, J., Nielsen, B. (eds.) FATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3395, pp. 79–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsen, K.G., Xinxin, L.: Equation solving using modal transition systems. In: Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logics in Computer Science (LICS), Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 4–7, pp. 108–117 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Interface input/output automata: Splitting assumptions from guarantees. In: [22]Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hermanns, H., Rehof, J., Stoelinga, M.I.A. (eds.): Workshop Procedings FIT 2005: Foundations of Interface Technologies. ENTCS. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim G. Larsen
    • 1
  • Ulrik Nyman
    • 1
  • Andrzej Wąsowski
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAalborg University 
  2. 2.Computational Logic and Algorithms GroupIT University of Copenhagen 

Personalised recommendations