On the relation between unity properties and sequences of states

  • R. T. Udink
  • J. N. Kok
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 666)


Stepwise refinement of programs has proven to be a suitable method for developing parallel and distributed programs. We examine and compare a number of different notions of program refinement for Unity. Two of these notions are based on execution sequences. Refinement corresponds to the reduction of the set of execution sequences, i.e. reducing the amount of nondeterminism. The other refinement notions are based on Unity properties as introduced by Chandy and Misra. The Unity approach is to refine specifications. Although it has proven a suitable formalism for deriving algorithms, it seems less suitable for handling implementation details. Following Sanders and Singh, we formalize program refinement in the Unity framework as the preservation of Unity properties. We show that Unity properties are not powerful enough to characterize execution sequences. As a consequence, the notion of property-preserving refinement differs from the notion of reducing the set of execution sequences.


Semantic models Unity, program refinement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AL88]
    M. Abadi and L. Lamport. The existence of refinement mappings. In Proc. of the 3rd Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pages 165–175, Washington D.C., July 1988. Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  2. [Bac90]
    R.-J.R. Back. Refinement calculus, part II: Parallel and reactive programs. In J.W. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness, pages 67–93. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [BKPR91]
    F.S. de Boer, J.N. Kok, C Palamidessi, and J.J.M.M. Rutten. The failure of failures in a paradigm of asynchronous communication. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.F. Groote, editors, CONCUR '91, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Concurrency Theory, pages 111–126. Springer-Verlag, August 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [CM88]
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallel Program Design — A Foundation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [DS90]
    E.W. Dijkstra and C.S. Scholten. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [Liu89]
    Z. Liu. A semantic model for UNITY. Technical Report Research report 144, Computer Science Department, University of Warwick, August 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [Mis90]
    J. Misra. The importance of ensuring. Notes on UNITY, 11–90, January 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [Pac90]
    J. Pachl. Three definitions of leads-to for UNITY. Notes on UNITY, 23–90, December 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [Pac92]
    J. Pachl. A simple proof of a completeness result for leads-to in the UNITY logic. Information Processing Letters, 41:35–38, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. [San90]
    B.A. Sanders. Stepwise refinement of mixed specifications of concurrent programs. In M. Broy and Jones C.B., editors, Proc. IFIP Working Conf. on Programming and Methods, pages 1–25. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland), May 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [San91]
    B.A. Sanders. Eliminating the substitution axiom from UNITY logic. Formal Aspects of Computing, 3(2):189–205, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [Sin91]
    A.K. Singh. Parallel programming: Achieving portability through abstraction. In 11th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, May 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [UK92]
    R.T. Udink and J.N. Kok. On the relation between unity properties and sequences of states. Technical report, Utrecht University, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. T. Udink
    • 1
  • J. N. Kok
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityTB UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations