Action systems and action refinement in the development of parallel systems

An algebraic approach
  • Wil Janssen
  • Mannes Poel
  • Job Zwiers
Selected Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 527)


A new notion of refinement and several other new operators are proposed that allow for a compositional algebraic characterization of action systems and serializability in distributed database systems. A simple design language is introduced and is provided with a semantics essentially based on partial order models.

Various algebraic transformation rules are introduced. They are applied in the design process of a simple system, starting from a specification of functional behaviour via the intermediate step in the form of a “true concurrency” based initial design to an actual implementation on a two processor architecture.


Partial Order Composition Operator Shared Variable Sequential Composition Parallel Composition 
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. [Back]
    R.J.R. Back, A calculus of refinements for program derivations, Acta Informatica 25, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [BKP]
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper and A. Pnueli, Now you may compose temporal logic specifications, Proc. of the 16th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Washington, 1984, pp. 51–63.Google Scholar
  3. [BHG]
    P.A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [CM]
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra, Parallel Program Design: A Foundation, Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [DNM]
    P. Degano, R. De Nicola and U. Montanari, Partial orderings descriptions and observations of nondeterministic concurrent processes, Proc. of the REX workshop on Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, 1988, LNCS 354, pp. 438–466.Google Scholar
  6. [EF]
    T. Elrad and N. Francez, Decomposition of distributed programs into communication closed layers, Science of Computer Programming 2, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. [Gaifman]
    H. Gaifman, Modeling Concurrency by Partial Orders and Nonlinear Transition Systems, Proc. of the REX workshop on Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, 1988, LNCS 354, pp. 467–488.Google Scholar
  8. [GHS]
    R.T. Gallager, P.A. Humblet and P.M. Spira, A distributed algorithm for minimum-weight spanning trees, ACM TOPLAS 5-1, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [GG]
    R. J. van Glabbeek and U. Goltz, Equivalence Notions for Concurrent Systems and Refinement of Actions, Arbeitspapiere der GMD, Number 366, GMD, 1989Google Scholar
  10. [HH]
    C.A.R. Hoare and He Jifeng, The weakest prespecification, IPL, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [Hooman]
    J. Hooman, Specification and Compositional Verification of Real-Time Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [Jones]
    C.B. Jones, Systematic software development using VDM, Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [JPZ]
    W. Janssen, M. Poel and J. Zwiers, Consistent alternatives of parallelism with conflicts, Memorandum INF-91-15, University of Twente.Google Scholar
  14. [KP]
    S. Katz and D. Peled, Interleaving set temporal logic, Proc. of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Vancouver, 1987, pp. 178–190.Google Scholar
  15. [Lamport]
    L. Lamport, The Hoare Logic of concurrent programs, Acta Informatica 14, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. [MP]
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, Verification of concurrent programs: the temporal framework, In R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore (eds), The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. [NEL]
    M. Nielsen, U. Engberg and K.S. Larsen, Fully abstract models for a process language with refinement, Proc. of the REX workshop on Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, 1988, LNCS 354, pp. 523–548.Google Scholar
  18. [OG]
    S. Owicki and D. Gries, An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs, Acta Informatica 6, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. [Pomello]
    L. Pomello, Refinement of Concurrent Systems Based on Local State Transformations, Proc. REX workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, 1989 LNCS 430, pp. 641–668.Google Scholar
  20. [Pratt]
    V. Pratt, Modelling Concurrency with Partial orders, International Journal of Parallel Programming 15, 1986, pp. 33–71.Google Scholar
  21. [SR]
    F.A. Stomp and W.P. de Roever, Designing distributed algorithms by means of formal sequentially phased reasoning, Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, Nice, LNCS 392, Eds. J.-C. Bermond and M. Raynal, 1989, pp. 242–253.Google Scholar
  22. [Winskel]
    G. Winskel, An introduction to event structures, Proc. of the REX workshop on Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, 1988, LNCS 354, pp. 364–397.Google Scholar
  23. [ZR]
    J. Zwiers and W.P. de Roever, Predicates are Predicate Transformers: a unified theory for concurrency, Proc. of the conference on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wil Janssen
    • 1
  • Mannes Poel
    • 1
  • Job Zwiers
    • 1
  1. 1.Dep. of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations