A fully observational model for infinite behaviours of communicating systems

  • Ph. Darondeau
  • B. Gamatie
Session CAAP 4 Concurrency
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 249)


This paper is concerned with the relation of abstraction between operational and observational models for linear time semantics of C.C.S. We construct a compositional and fully abstract model for CCS under infinite (program defined) experiments which give maximal power of separation. The construction is in two stages:

In the first stage, we use a uniform procedure to translate structural inferential semantics into denotational semantics; terms and operators are interpreted by sets of transition sequences and operators on sets of transition sequences.

In the second stage, we derive the observational model from the operational model through an adequate homorphism. The morphic images of transition sequences, or observations, are pairs 〈W, R〉 or 〈W, ω〉, where R is a ready set and w (resp W), is the visible trace of a finite (resp infinite) sequence of transitions.

The observational meanings of programs coincide with the associated set of maximal observations for the order <w, R∪R′> \(\subseteq\)<w, R> \(\subseteq\)<w, ω>.


Abstract Model Operational Semantic Abstract Computation Transition Sequence Denotational Semantic 


  1. [1]
    Abramsky S. Experiments, Power domains, and Fully Abstract Models for Applicative Multiprogramming FCT 83, Borgholm Springer-Verlag, LNCS 158 (83) pp. 1–13Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Arnold A., Dicky A. An Algebraic Characterization of Transition System Equivalence, Report I-8603, Université de Bordeaux (86)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bekić H. Definable Operations in General Algebras, and the Theory of Automata and Flowcharts, IBM Laboratory Vienna (69) also in: Programming Languages and their Definition, selected papers of H. Bekić, Springer-Verlag LNCS 177(84)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bergstra J.A., Klop J.W., Olderog E.R. Readies and Failures in the Algebra of Communicating Processes, Report CS-R8523, CWI, Amsterdam (85)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Boasson L., Nivat M. Adherences of Languages, JCSS 20 (80) pp. 285–309Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Boudol G. Notes on Algebraic Calculi of Processes, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, K. Apt. ed, NATO-ASI-Series, Springer-Verlag (85) pp. 261–304Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Brookes S, Roscoe A. W. An Improved Failures Model for Communicating Processes Seminar on Concurrency, Brookes Roscoe Winskel eds. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 197(85) pp. 281–305Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Darondeau Ph. Kott L. On the Observational Semantics of Fair Parallelism, ICALP 83, Barcelona, Springer-Verlag LNCS 154 (83) pp. 147–159Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Darondeau Ph. About Fair Asynchrony, TCS 37 (85) pp. 305–336Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    " Separating and Testing, STACS 86, Orsay, Springer-Verlag LNCS 210 (86) pp. 203–212Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    de Bakker J.W., Meyer J.J.Ch., Olderog E.R. Infinite Streams and Finite Observations in the Semantics of Uniform Concurrency, ICALP 85, Naflion, Springer-Verlag LNCS 194 (85) pp. 149–157Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    de Bakker J.W., Meyer J.J.Ch., Olderog E.R., Zucker J.I. Transition Systems, Infinitary Languages and the Semantics of Uniform Concurrency 17th ACM STOC, Providence (85) pp. 252,262Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    de Nicola R., Hennessy M. Testing Equivalences for Processes TCS 34 (84) pp. 83–133Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    de Nicola R. Testing Equivalences and Fully Abstract Models for Communicating Processes. Ph. D Thesis, University of Edinburgh (85)Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Gamatie B. Observational Congruences of Non Deterministic and Communicating Finite Processes RR-254-IRISA Rennes (85)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    " Safe Implementation Equivalence for Asynchronous Non Deterministic Processes, MFCS 86, Bratislava, Springer-Verlag LNCS 233 (86)Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    " Towards Specification and Proof of Asynchronous Systems, STACS 86, Orsay, Springer-Verlag LNCS 210 (86) pp. 203–212Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Golson W., Rounds W. C. Connections Between two Theories of Concurrency: Metric Spaces and Synchronization Trees Information and Control 57 (83) pp.102–124Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Hennessy M., Plotkin G. A Term Model for CCS Springer-Verlag LNCS 88 (80) pp.261–274Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Hennessy M. Acceptance Trees, JACM 32 (85) pp. 896–928Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Jorrand Ph Specification of Communicating Processes and Process Implementation Correctness, 5th Int. Symposium on Programming, Turin Springer Verlag LNCS 137(82) pp.242–256Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Milner R. Fully Abstract Models of Typed lambda-calculi, TCS 4 (77) pp. 1–23Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    " A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Springer — Verlag LNCS 92 (80)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Olderog E. R., Hoare C.A.R. Specification Oriented Semantics for Communicating Processes, Acta Informatica 23,1 (86) pp. 9–86Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Plotkin G. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, Rept. DAIMI-FN-19, Univ. of Aarhus, Computer Science Department (81)Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Pnueli A. Linear and Branching Structures in the Semantics and Logics of Reactive Systems, ICALP 85, Nafplion, Springer — Verlag LNCS 194 (85) pp. 15–32Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Rounds W. C. On the Relationships Between Scott Domains, Synchronization Trees and Metric Spaces, Information and Control 66 (85) pp. 6–28Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Tarski A. A Lattice Theoretic Fixpoint Theorem and its Applications, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5 (55) pp. 285–309.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ph. Darondeau
    • 1
  • B. Gamatie
    • 1
  1. 1.iRiSACampus de BeaulieuRennes Cedex

Personalised recommendations