Structural operational specifications and trace automata

  • Eric Badouel
  • Philippe Darondeau
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 630)


Structural Operational Specifications (SOS) are supplied with concurrent models based on permutations of proved transitions. Those models take the form of trace automata which are deterministic automata equipped with an explicit relation of independence on actions. In order to characterize the finite trace automata which may be realized in SOS-algebras, we introduce a new kind of nets which encode exactly the concurrent behaviour of systems specified in SOS and we establish a correspondence between nets and the so-called ‘separated’ trace automata which may be realized in SOS.


Transition System Process Algebra Schematic Proof Input Place Output Place 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AN82]
    Arnold, A., and Nivat, M., Comportements de processus. Colloque AFCET « Les Mathématiques de l'Informatique », (1982) 35–68.Google Scholar
  2. [BD92]
    Badouel, E., and Darondeau, Ph., Structural Operational Specifications and Trace Automata, INRIA research report no 1631 (1992).Google Scholar
  3. [Bed88]
    Bednarczyk, M.A., Categories of asynchronous systems. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, report no.1/88 (1988).Google Scholar
  4. [BC88]
    Boudol, G., and Castellani, I., A non-interleaving semantics for CCS based on proved transitions. Fundamenta Informaticae XI (1988) 433–452.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [BC90]
    Boudol, G., and Castellani, I., Three Equivalent Semantics for CCS. Semantics of Systems of Concurrent Processes, I. Guessarian (Ed.) LNCS 469 (1990) 96–141.Google Scholar
  6. [deS84]
    De Simone, R., Calculabilité et expressivité dans l'algèbre de processus MEIJE. Thèse de 3ème Cycle, Université de Paris VII (1984).Google Scholar
  7. [LX90]
    Larsen, K., and Xinxin, L., Compositionality through an operational semantics of contexts. Proc. 17th ICALP (Warwick), LNCS 443 (1990) 526–539.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [Mil80]
    Milner, R., A calculus of communicating systems. Springer-Verlag LNCS 92 (1980).Google Scholar
  9. [NRT90]
    Nielsen, M., Rozenberg, G., and Thiagarajan, P.S., Elementary Transition Systems. DAIMI PB-310 Aarhus (1990).Google Scholar
  10. [Niv79]
    Nivat, M., Sur la synchronisation des processus. Revue technique Thomson-CSF, 11, (1979) 899–919.Google Scholar
  11. [Plo81]
    Plotkin, G., A structural approach to operational semantics. DAIMI-FN-19 Aarhus (1981).Google Scholar
  12. [Sta89a]
    Stark, E.W., Concurrent transition systems. Theoretical Computer Science 64 (1989) 221–269.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Sta89b]
    Stark, E.W., Connections between a concrete and an abstract model of concurrent systems. 5th Mathematical Foundations of programming semantics (1989) 53–79.Google Scholar
  14. [Sta.89c]
    Stark, E.W., Compositional Relational Semantics for Indeterminate Dataflow Networks. Summer Conference on Category Theory and Computer Science, LNCS 389 (1989) 52–74.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [Win9l]
    Winskel, G., Categories of Models for Concurrency. Advanced School on the Algebraic, Logical, and Categorical Foundations of Concurrency, Gargnano del Garda (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Badouel
    • 1
  • Philippe Darondeau
    • 1
  1. 1.IrisaRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations