Invariant semantics of nets with inhibitor arcs

  • Ryszard Janicki
  • Maciej Koutny
Selected Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 527)


We here discuss an invariant semantics of concurrent systems which is a generalisation of the causal partial order (CPO) semantics. The new semantics is consistent with the full operational behaviour of inhibitor and priority nets expressed in terms of step sequences. It employs combined partial orders, or composets, where each composet is a relational structure consisting of a causal partial order and a weak causal partial order. In this paper we develop a representation of composets using a novel concept of comtrace, which is certain equivalence class of step sequences. The whole approach resembles to a significant extent the trace semantics introduced by Mazurkiewicz. Composets correspond to posets, comtraces correspond to traces, while step sequences correspond to interleaving sequences. The independency relation is replaced by two new relations. The first is simultaneity which is a symmetric relation comprising pairs of event which may be executed in one step. The other is serialisability which comprises pairs of events (e,f) such that if e and f can be executed in one step then they can also be executed in the order: e followed by f. We show that the comtraces enjoy essentially the same kind of properties as Mazurkiewicz traces, e.g., each comtrace is unambiguously identified by any step sequence which belongs to it. As a system model we consider Elementary Net Systems with Inhibitor Arcs (ENI-systems). We show that the comtrace model provides an invariant semantics for such nets and is in a full agreement with their operational semantics expressed in terms of step sequences. We finally show that the composets represented by comtraces can be generated by generalising the standard construction of a process of a 1-safe Petri net.


Partial Order Total Order Operational Semantic Step Sequence Concurrent System 
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. [AR88]
    Aalbersberg IJ., Rozenberg G., Theory of Traces, Theoretical Computer Science, 60 (1988), pp. 1–82.Google Scholar
  2. [BD87]
    Best E., Devillers R., Sequential and Concurrent Behaviour in Petri Net Theory, Theoretical Computer Science, 55 (1987), pp.87–136.Google Scholar
  3. [BK91]
    Best E., Koutny M., Petri Net Semantics of Priority Systems, to appear in Theoretical Computer Science.Google Scholar
  4. [Ho85]
    Hoare C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [Ja87]
    Janicki R., A Formal Semantics for Concurrent Systems with a Priority Relation, Acta Informatica 24, 1987, pp.33–55.Google Scholar
  6. [JK89]
    Janicki R., Koutny M., Towards a Theory of Simulation for Verification of Concurrent Systems, in: PARLE'89, E. Odijk, M. Rem, J.-C. Syre (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.366, 73–88, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [JK90]
    Janicki R., Koutny M., A Bottom-Top Approach to Concurrency Theory Part I: Observations, Invariants and Paradigms, Technical Report 90-04, McMaster University, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [JK91]
    Janicki R., Koutny M., Invariants and Paradigms of Concurrency Theory, Proc. of Parle'91, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, to appear, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [JK91a]
    Janicki R., Koutny M., Structure of Concurrency, Proc. of the AMAST Conference, Iowa City, May 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [JK91b]
    Janicki R., Koutny M., Relational Structure Semantics of Concurrent Systems, to appear in the Proc. of 13th IMACS Congress on Computation and Applied Mathematics, Dublin, July 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [JL88]
    Janicki R., Lauer P.E., On the Semantics of Priority Systems, 17th Annual International Conference on Parallel Processing, Vol. 2, pp. 150–156, 1988, Pen. State Press.Google Scholar
  12. [La85]
    Lamport L., What It Means for a Concurrent Program to Satisfy a Specification: Why No One Has Specified Priority, 12th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1985, pp. 78–83.Google Scholar
  13. [La86]
    Lamport L., On Interprocess Communication, Part I: Basic formalism, Part II, Algorithms, Distributed Computing 1 (1986), pp. 77–101.Google Scholar
  14. [Ma77]
    Mazurkiewicz A., Concurrent Program Schemes and Their Interpretations, DAIMI-PB-78, Aarhus University, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. [Ma86]
    Mazurkiewicz A., Trace Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 255, Springer 1986, pp. 297–324.Google Scholar
  16. [NRT90]
    Nielsen M., Rozenberg G., Thiagarajan P.S., Behavioural Notions for Elementary Net Systems, Distributed Computing 4 (1990), pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
  17. [Pe81]
    Peterson J.L., Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems, Prentice Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. [Pr86]
    Pratt V., Modelling Concurrency with Partial Orders, Int. Journal of Parallel Programming 15, 1 (1986), pp. 33–71.Google Scholar
  19. [Re85]
    Reisig W., Petri Nets, Springer 1985.Google Scholar
  20. [Sz30]
    Szpilrajn-Marczewski E., Sur l'extension de l'ordre partial, Fundamenta Mathematicae 16 (1930), pp.386–389.Google Scholar
  21. [Vo90]
    Vogler W., A Generalization of Trace Theory, Technical Report TUM-I9018, Techn. Univ. München, 1990, (to appear in RAIRO Theor. Inf. and Appl.).Google Scholar
  22. [Wi82]
    Winskel G., Event Structure Semantics for CCS and Related Language, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 140, Springer 1982, pp.561–567.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryszard Janicki
    • 1
  • Maciej Koutny
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and SystemsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Computing LaboratoryThe University of Newcastle upon TyneNewcastle upon TyneU.K.

Personalised recommendations