Advertisement

Specifying interaction categories

  • D. Pavlović
  • S. Abramsky
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1290)

Abstract

We analyse two complementary methods for obtaining models of typed process calculi, in the form of interaction categories. These two methods allow adding new features to previously captured notions of process and of type, respectively. By combining them, all familiar examples of interaction categories, as well as some new ones, can be built starting from some familiar categories.

Using the presented constructions, interaction categories can be analysed without fixing a set of axioms, merely in terms of the way in which they are specified —just like algebras are analysed in terms of equations and relations, independently on abstract characterisations of their varieties.

Keywords

Monoidal Category Linear Logic Free Monoid Monoidal Structure Total Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abramsky, S.J. Gay and R. Nagarajan, Interaction categories and the foundations of the typed concurrent programming. In: Deductive Program Design: Proceedings of the 1994 Marktoberdorf International Summer School, (Springer 1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abramsky, S.J. Gay and R. Nagarajan, Specification structures and propositions-as-types for concurrency. In: Logics for Concurrency: Structure vs. Automata. Proceedings of the VIIIth Banff Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science(Springer 1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Abramsky and R. Jagadeesan, Games and full completeness for multiplicative linear logic, J. Symbolic Logic Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Abramsky, R. Jagadeesan and P. Malacaria, Full abstraction for PCF, submitted (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Barr, ⋆-Autonomous Categories, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 752 (Springer 1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Barr, ⋆-Autonomous categories and linear logic, Math. Structures Comput. Sci. 1/2 (1991), 159–178zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Bénabou, Introduction to bicategories, in: Reports of the Midwest Category Seminar I, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 47 (Springer, 1967) 1–77Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Bénabou, 2-dimensional limits and colimits of distributors, abstract of a talk given in Oberwolfach (1972)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.M. Bierman, What is a categorical model of intuitionistic linear logic?, in: Proceedings of Conference on Typed Lambda Calculus and Applications, M. Dezani Ciancaglini and G. Plotkin, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science 902 (Springer 1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Danos and L. Regnier, The structure of multiplicatives, Archive form Math. Logic 28 (1989) 181–203zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Fox, Coalgebras and cartesian categories, Comm. Algebra, 4/7 (1976) 665–667zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.J. Freyd and A. Scedrov, Categories, Allegories, North-Holland Mathematical Library 39 (North-Holland, 1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Fleury and C. Retoré, The MIX rule, Unpublished note, 1990Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.-Y. Girard et al., Proofs and Types, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 7 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Grothendieck, Catégories fibrées et descente, Exposé VI, Revêtements Etales et Groupe Fondamental (SGAI), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 224 (Springer, 1971) 145–194Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.M. Kelly, Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory, L.M.S. Lecture Notes 64 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.M. Kelly and M.L. Laplaza, Coherence for compact closed categories, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 19 (1980) 193–213zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Makkai, Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory, to appear in J. Pure Appl. Algebra Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Pavlović, Categorical logic of concurrency and interaction I. Synchronous processes, in: Theory and Formal Methods of Computing 1994, C.L. Henkin et al., eds. (World Scientific 1995), 105–141Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Pavlovié, Convenient categories of processes and simulations I: modulo strong bisimilarity, Category Theory and Computer Science '95, D.H. Pitt et al., eds., Lect. Notes in Comp. Science 953 (Springer, 1995), 3–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Pavlovié, Maps I: relative to a factorisation system, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 99 (1995), 9–34; Maps II: Chasing diagrams in categorical proof theory, J. of the IGPL 2/4(1996), 159–194MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.A.G. Seely, Linear logic, *-autonomous categories and cofree coalgebras, in: J. Gray and A. Scedrov (eds.), Categories in Computer Science and Logic, Contemp. Math. 92 (Amer. Math. Soc., 1989), 371–382Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Street, Conduché functors, a hand written note, dated 15 October 1986, 4 pp. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A0008C33 00004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Pavlović
    • 1
  • S. Abramsky
    • 2
  1. 1.COGSUniversity of SussexBrighton
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options