The Meaning of Ordered SOS

  • MohammadReza Mousavi
  • Iain Phillips
  • Michel A. Reniers
  • Irek Ulidowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4337)


Structured Operational Semantics (SOS) is a popular method for defining semantics by means of deduction rules. An important feature of deduction rules, or simply SOS rules, are negative premises, which are crucial in the definitions of such phenomena as priority mechanisms and time-outs. Orderings on SOS rules were proposed by Phillips and Ulidowski as an alternative to negative premises. The meaning of general types of SOS rules with orderings has not been studied hitherto. This paper presents satisfactory ways of giving a meaning to general SOS rules with orderings. We also give semantics-preserving transformations between the two paradigms, namely, SOS with negative premises and SOS with orderings.


Transition System Stable Model Transition Relation Rule Format Process Algebra 
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.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Syntax and defining equations for an interrupt mechanism in process algebra. Fundamenta Informaticae XI(2), 127–168 (1986)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W., Weijland, W.P.: Term-rewriting systems with rule priorities. TCS 67(2&3), 283–301 (1989)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloom, B., Istrail, S., Meyer, A.R.: Bisimulation Can’t Be Traced. JACM 42(1), 232–268 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bol, R., Groote, J.F.: The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications. JACM 43(5), 863–914 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Glabbeek, R.J.: The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications II. JLAP 60-61, 229–258 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groote, J.F.: Transition system specifications with negative premises. TCS 118(2), 263–299 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hennessy, M., Regan, T.: A process algebra for timed systems. I&C 117(2), 221–239 (1995)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lanotte, R., Tini, S.: Probabilistic congruence for semistochastic generative processes. In: Sassone, V. (ed.) FOSSACS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3441, pp. 63–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ulidowski, I., Phillips, I.C.C.: Ordered SOS Rules and Process Languages for Branching and Eager Bisimulations. I&C 178(1), 180–213 (2002)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • MohammadReza Mousavi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Iain Phillips
    • 3
  • Michel A. Reniers
    • 1
  • Irek Ulidowski
    • 4
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Reykjavík UniversityReykjavíkIceland
  3. 3.Imperial CollegeLondonUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.University of LeicesterLeicesterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations