We introduce a form of testing concurrent processes which is more powerful than that of De Nicola & Hennessy in that an observer can not only tell that a process performs an action but also discover in finite time that a process will not perform an action. The equivalence associated with refusal testing is compared with De Nicola & Hennessy's testing equivalence and Milner's observation equivalence.
KeywordsGreen Light Composition Operator Visible Action Concurrent Process Priority Operator
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [BBK85]J C M Baeten, J A Bergstra & J W Klop, Ready trace semantics for concrete process algebra with priority operator, CWI Amsterdam Report CS-R8517, 1985Google Scholar
- [BHR84]S D Brookes, C A R Hoare & A W Roscoe, A theory of communicating sequential processes, JACM 31 (1984) 560–569Google Scholar
- [DNH84]R De Nicola & M C B Hennessy, Testing equivalences for processes, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 34 (1984) 83–133 (and 10th ICALP, LNCS 154 (1983) 548–560)Google Scholar
- [HeM80]M C B Hennessy & R Milner, On observing nondeterminism and concurrency, 7th ICALP, LNCS 85 (1980) 299–309Google Scholar
- [Mil80]R Milner, A calculus of communicating systems, LNCS 92 (1980)Google Scholar
- [Mil81]R Milner, A modal characterisation of observable machine-behaviour, CAAP, LNCS 112 (1981) 25–34Google Scholar
- [OlH83]E R Olderog & C A R Hoare, Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes, 10th ICALP, LNCS 154 (1983) 561–572Google Scholar
- [Phi85]I C C Phillips, Refusal Testing, Imperial College Department of Computing Research Report DoC 85/17, 1985Google Scholar
- [Pnu85]A Pnueli, Linear and branching structures in the semantics and logic of reactive systems, 12th ICALP, LNCS 194 (1985) 15–32Google Scholar
- [Sti85]C Stirling, Modal logics for communicating systems, University of Edinburgh Department of Computer Science Internal Report CSR-193-85, 1985Google Scholar