Transforming SOS Specifications to Linear Processes

  • Frank P. M. Stappers
  • Michel A. Reniers
  • Sven Weber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6959)


This paper describes an approach to transform Structural Operational Semantics, given as a set of deduction rules, to a Linear Process Specification. The transformation is provided for deduction rules in De Simone format, including predicates. The Linear Process Specifications are specified in the syntax of the mCRL2 language, that, with help of the underlying (higher-order) re-writer/tool-set, can be used for simulation, labeled transition system generation and verification of behavioral properties. We illustrate the technique by showing the effect of the transformation from the Structural Operational Semantics specification of a simple process algebra to a Linear Process Specification.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aceto, L., Bloom, B., Vaandrager, F.W.: Turning SOS Rules into Equations. Inf. Comput. 111(1), 1–52 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aceto, L., Fokkink, W., Verhoef, C.: Conservative Extension in Structural Operational Semantics. In: Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 504–524 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aceto, L., Ingolfsdottir, A., Mousavi, M.R., Reniers, M.A.: Algebraic Properties for Free? Bulletin of the EATCS 99, 81–104 (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Basten, T., Reniers, M.A.: Process Algebra: Equational Theories of Communicating Processes (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Verhoef, C.: A Congruence Theorem for Structured Operational Semantics with Predicates. In: CONCUR, pp. 477–492 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bezem, M., Bol, R.N., Groote, J.F.: Formalizing Process Algebraic Verifications in the Calculus of Constructions. Formal Asp. Comput. 9(1), 1–48 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloom, B., Istrail, S., Meyer, A.R.: Bisimulation can’t be traced. J. ACM 42(1), 232–268 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bol, R.N., Groote, J.F.: The Meaning of Negative Premises in Transition System Specifications. J. ACM 43(5), 863–914 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boudol, G., Roy, V., de Simone, R., Vergamini, D.: Process Calculi, from Theory to Practice: Verification Tools. In: Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, pp. 1–10 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braga, C., Meseguer, J.: Modular Rewriting Semantics in Practice. ENTCS 117, 393–416 (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de O. Braga, C.: Rewriting Logic as a Semantic Framework for Modular Structural Operational Semantics. PhD thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de O.Braga, C., Haeusler, E.H., Bevilacqua, V., Mosses, P.D.: Maude action tool: Using reflection to map action semantics to rewriting logic. In: Rus, T. (ed.) AMAST 2000. LNCS, vol. 1816, p. 407. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de O. Braga, C., Haeusler, E.H., Meseguer, J., Mosses, P.D.: Mapping Modular SOS to Rewriting Logic. In: LOPSTR, pp. 262–277 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buth, K.H.: Using SOS Definitions in Term Rewriting Proofs. In: Larch, Workshops in Computing, pp. 36–54. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buth, K.-H.: Simulation of SOS Definitions with Term Rewriting Systems. In: Sannella, D. (ed.) ESOP 1994. LNCS, vol. 788, pp. 150–164. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cleaveland, R., Madelaine, E., Sims, S.: A Front-End Generator for Verification Tools. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 153–173. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cleaveland, R., Sims, S.: The NCSU Concurrency Workbench. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 394–397. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Simone, R.: Higher-Level Synchronising Devices in Meije-SCCS. Theor. Comput. Sci. 37, 245–267 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Degano, P., Gadducci, F., Priami, C.: A Causal Semantics for CCS via Rewriting Logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 275(1-2), 259–282 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fokkink, W.: Modelling Distributed Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fokkink, W., Verhoef, C.: A Conservative Look at Operational Semantics with Variable Binding. Inf. Comput. 146(1), 24–54 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Groote, J.F., Mathijssen, A.J.H., Reniers, M.A., Usenko, Y.S., van Weerdenburg, M.J.: The Formal Specification Language mCRL2. In: Methods for Modelling Software Systems (MMOSS), number 06351 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groote, J.F., Vaandrager, F.W.: Structured Operational Semantics and Bisimulation as a Congruence. Inf. Comput. 100(2), 202–260 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guttag, J.V., Horning, J.J.: Larch: Languages and Tools for Formal Specification. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hartel, P.H.: LETOS - a Lightweight Execution Tool for Operational Semantics. Softw., Pract. Exper. 29(15), 1379–1416 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J.: Rewriting Logic as a Logical and Semantic Framework. ENTCS 4 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The mCRL2 toolset,
  28. 28.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditioned Rewriting Logic as a United Model of Concurrency. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mosses, P.D.: Exploiting Labels in Structural Operational Semantics. In: SAC 2004, pp. 1476–1481 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mosses, P.D.: Modular Structural Operational Semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program 61, 195–228 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mousavi, M.R., Reniers, M.A.: Prototyping SOS Meta-theory in Maude. ENTCS 156(1), 135–150 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mousavi, M.R., Reniers, M.A., Groote, J.F.: SOS Formats and Meta-theory: 20 Years After. Theor. Comput. Sci. 373(3), 238–272 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program 61, 17–139 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stappers, F.P.M., Reniers, M.A., Weber, S.: Transforming SOS Specifications to Linear Processes. Computer Science Report No. 11-07, Eindhoven University of Technology (May 2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stappers, F.P.M., Weber, S., Reniers, M.A., Andova, S., Nagy, I.: Formalizing a Domain Specific Language using SOS: An Industrial Case Study. In: SLE 2011. LNCS (to appear)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    The Maude system,
  37. 37.
    Turner, D.A.: Miranda: A Non-Strict Functional Language with Polymorphic Types. In: FPCA, pp. 1–16 (1985)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verdejo, A.: Building Tools for LOTOS Symbolic Semantics in Maude. In: Peled, D.A., Vardi, M.Y. (eds.) FORTE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2529, pp. 292–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N.: Implementing CCS in Maude 2. ENTCS 71 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N.: Executable Structural Operational Semantics in Maude. J. Log. Algebr. Program 67(1-2), 226–293 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank P. M. Stappers
    • 1
  • Michel A. Reniers
    • 2
  • Sven Weber
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department for Architecture and PlatformASMLVeldhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations