Compositional liveness properties of EN-systems

  • D. Gomm
  • E. Kindler
  • B. Paech
  • R. Walter
Full Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 691)


Modular design principles have gained great importance for the development of distributed systems. Compositional system properties are regarded as technical foundation for modular design methods. This paper introduces a compositional operator “changes to” for the expression of liveness properties, where the notion of composition is formalized by merging of places of Petri nets. “Changes to” is one operator of a temporal proof calculus which combines Petri nets with a UNITY-like temporal logic. The logic is interpreted on partial order semantics of Petri nets which allows the formalization of progress in distributed systems without a global fairness assumption.

In order to apply the operator “changes to” for proving a property of an example system, we introduce some additional operators and a part of the proof calculus.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [CM88]
    K. M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallel Program Design: A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [DGK+92]
    J. Desel, D. Gomm, E. Kindler, B. Paech, and R. Walter. Bausteine eines kompositionalen Beweiskalküls für netzmodellierte Systeme. SFB-Bericht Nr. 342/16/92 A, Technische Universität München, July 92.Google Scholar
  3. [Kin92]
    Ekkart Kindler. Invariants, compositionality, and substitution. SFB-Bericht Nr. 342/25/92 A, Technische Universität München, November 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [KP90]
    Shmuel Katz and Doron Peled. Interleaving set temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 75:263–287, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [Lam77]
    Leslie Lamport. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-3(2):125–143, March 1977.Google Scholar
  6. [Lam90]
    Leslie Lamport. A temporal logic of actions. Research Report SRC57, Digital Equipment Corporation, Systems Research Center, April 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [MT89]
    M. Mukund and P.S. Thiagarajan. An axiomatization of event structures. LNCS 405, pages 143–160. Springer, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. [Pae91a]
    Barbara Paech. Concurrency as a modality. SFB-Bericht Nr. 342/1/91 A, Technische Universität München, Institut für Informatik, January 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [Pae91b]
    Barbara Paech. Extending temporal logic by explicit concurrency. In MFCS, LNCS 520, pages 377–386. Springer, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [Pel87]
    David Peleg. Concurrent dynamic logic. Journal of the ACM, 34(2):450–479, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [Pen88]
    W. Penczek. A temporal logic for event structures. Fundamenta Informaticae, 11:297–326, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [Pnu86]
    Amir Pnueli. Specification and development of reactive systems. In H.-J. Kugler, editor, Information Processing, pages 845–858. IFIP, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [PW84]
    Shlomit S. Pinter and Pierre Wolper. A temporal logic for reasoning about partially ordered computations. In Proceedings Third Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computations, pages 28–37. ACM, August 1984.Google Scholar
  14. [Rei85]
    Wolfgang Reisig. Petri Nets, volume 4 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [Rei88]
    Wolfgang Reisig. Towards a temporal logic for causality and choice in distributed systems. In REX workshop, LNCS 354, pages 603–627. Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [Rei91]
    Wolfgang Reisig. Parallel composition of liveness. SFB-Bericht Nr. 342/30/91 A, Technische Universität München, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [San91]
    Beverly A. Sanders. Eliminating the substitution axiom from UNITY logic. Formal Aspects of Computing, 3:189–205, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [Thi86]
    P.S. Thiagarajan. Elementary net systems. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties, LNCS 254, Pages 26–59. Springer-Verlag, September 1986.Google Scholar
  19. [Vog91]
    Walter Vogler. Failure semantics based on interval semiwords is a congruence for refinement. Distributed Computing, 4:139–162, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Gomm
    • 1
  • E. Kindler
    • 1
  • B. Paech
    • 2
  • R. Walter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMünchen 2Germany
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchen 2Germany

Personalised recommendations