Term rewriting properties of SOS axiomatisations

  • D. J. B. Bosscher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 789)


In [Aceto, Bloom and Vaandrager, '92] two strategies are presented to produce axiomatisations of strong bisimulation equivalence for languages whose operational semantics can be expressed in the GSOS format of [Bloom, Istrail and Meyer, '90]. In [Aceto et al.] it is stated that if the GSOS systems satisfy certain finiteness conditions, one of these axiomatisations is strongly normalising and confluent. We show that their claim as a whole is wrong, but prove confluency and weak normalisation by presenting a normalising rewrite strategy. We can however prove strong normalisation for the axiomatisations of a decidable class of such systems. The analysis of the term rewriting properties of the axiomatisations is modulo the associativity and commutativity of the choice operation.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:

68Q42 68Q55 68Q60 68Q65 

1991 CR Categories:

D.1.3 D.3.1 F.3.2 I.2.2 

Key Words and Phrases:

Structural Operational Semantics (SOS) GSOS format bisimulation equivalence process algebra axiomatisations term rewriting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Aceto, B. Bloom, and F.W. Vaandrager. Turning SOS rules into equations. In Proceedings 7th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Santa Cruz, California, pages 113–124. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992. Full version available as CWI Report CS-R9218, June 1992, Amsterdam. To appear in the LICS 92 Special Issue of Information and Computation.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G.J. Akkerman and J.C.M. Baeten. Term rewriting analysis in process algebra. Report P9006, Programming Research Group, University of Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bloom, S. Istrail, and A.R. Meyer. Bisimulation can't be traced: Preliminary report. In Conference Record of the 15th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Diego, California, pages 229–239, 1988. Full version available as Technical Report 90-1150, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, August 1990. Accepted to appear in Journal of the ACM.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.F. Groote and F.W. Vaandrager. Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence. Information and Computation, 100(2):202–260, October 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.-P. Jouannaud and H. Kirchner. Completion of a set of rules modulo a set of equations. SIAM Journal of Computing, 15:1155–1194, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.W. Klop. Term rewriting systems. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Volume II. Oxford University Press, 1992. To appear.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huimin Lin. PAM: A Process Algebra Manipulator (Version 1.0). Report 4/93, Computer Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, February 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Madelaine, R. de Simone, and D. Vergamini. ECRINS V2-1, USERS MANUAL, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. de Simone. Higher-level synchronising devices in MEIJE-SCCS. Theoretical Computer Science, 37:245–267, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Verhoef. A congruence theorem for structured operational semantics with predicates and negative premises. Computing Science Notes 93/18, Eindhoven University of Technology, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. B. Bosscher
    • 1
  1. 1.CWIGB AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations