Partial words versus processes: A short comparison

  • Walter Vogler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 609)


In this note I want to draw attention to partial words, a less known partial order semantics of Petri nets. Partial words have recently proven to be of importance, e.g. in the study of action refinement. An important result of A. Kiehn relates partial words and Petri net processes, and a short proof of this result is given here.


Partial order semantics processes partial words 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AH89]
    L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Towards action-refinement in process algebras. In Proc. 4th LICS, pages 138–145. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1989. A full version has appeared as Computer Science Report 3/88, Dept. Comp. Sci. Univ. of Sussex, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [BD87]
    E. Best and R. Devillers. Sequential and concurrent behaviour in Petri net theory. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 55:87–136, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [BDKP91]
    E. Best, R. Devillers, A. Kiehn, and L. Pomello. Concurrent bisimulations in Petri nets. Acta Informatica, 28:231–264, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [Bo190]
    B. Bollobàs. Graph Theory. An Introductory Course. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 63. Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [CDMP87]
    L. Castellano, G. De Michelis, and L. Pomello. Concurrency vs. interleaving: An instructive example. Bull. EATCS, 31:12–15, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [dBW90]
    J.W. de Bakker and J.H.A. Warmerdam. Metric pomset semantics for a concurrent language with recursion. In I. Guessarion, editor, Semantics of Systems of Concurrent Processes, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 469, 21–49, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [Dev90]
    R. Devillers. Maximality preserving bisimulation. Technical Report LIT-214, Univ. Bruxelles, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [GG89]
    R.J. v. Glabbeek and U. Goltz. Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. In A. Kreczmar and G. Mirkowska, editors, MFCS 89, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 379, 237–248, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [GR83]
    U. Goltz and W. Reisig. The non-sequential behaviour of Petri nets. Information and Control, 57:125–147, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. [Gra81]
    J. Grabowski. On partial languages. Fundamenta Informaticae, IV. 2:428–498, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [GV90]
    R. Gold and W. Vogler. Quality criteria for partial order semantics of place/transition nets. In B. Rovan, editor, MFCS 90, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 452, 306–312, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [HRT89]
    J. Hirshfeld, A. Rabinovich, and B.A. Trakhtenbrot. Discerning causality in interleaving behaviour. In A.R. Meyer and M.A. Taitslin, editors, Logic at Botik '89, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 363, 146–162, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [Kie88]
    A. Kiehn. On the interrelationship between synchronized and non-synchronized behaviour of Petri nets. J. Inf. Process. Cybern. EIK, 24:3–18, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [Maz87]
    A. Mazurkiewicz. Trace theory. In W. Brauer et al., editors, Petri Nets: Applications and Relationships to other Models of Concurrency, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 255, pages 279–324, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. [NEL89]
    M. Nielsen, U. Engberg, and K. Larsen. Partial order semantics for concurrency. In J.W. de Bakker et al., editors, Proc. REX School / Workshop Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logic and Models of Concurrency. Noordwijkerhout, 1988, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 354, 523–548, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [Pra86]
    V. Pratt. Modelling concurrency with partial orders. Int. J. Parallel Prog., 15:33–71, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. [Roz87]
    G. Rozenberg. Behaviour of elementary net-systems. In W. Brauer et al., editors, Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 254, pages 60–94, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. [Sta81]
    P.H. Starke. Processes in Petri nets. J. Inf. Process. Cybern. EIK, 17:389–416, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. [Vog91a]
    W. Vogler. Executions: A new partial order semantics of Petri nets. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 91:205–238, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [Vog91b]
    W. Vogler. Failures semantics based on interval semiwords is a congruence for refinement. Distributed Computing, 4:139–162, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [Vog91c]
    W. Vogler. Bisimulation and action refinement. In C. Choffrut and M. Jantzen, editors, STACS 91, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 480, 309–321, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Vogler
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMünchen 2

Personalised recommendations