Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Concurrency Theory

CONCUR 1992: CONCUR '92 pp 17–31Cite as

Testing equivalence for Petri Nets with action refinement: Preliminary report

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 630))

Abstract

A definition of “action refinement” is given for an operational model of concurrent processes based on safe Petri Nets, generalizing previous work of Vogler and van Glabbeek/Goltz. A failure-style denotational semantics is described for process nets. The semantics is fully abstract for Hennessy Testing-equivalence on nets acting as refinement operators as well as operands. The semantics embodies the notions of deadlock, failures and divergences found in the Hoare/CSP and Hennessy Testing-equivalence theories, as well as some of the basic ideas of “pomset runs” and “causal” partial orders of Net theory.

Supported by the AT&T GRPW Fellowship, NSF Grant No. 8511190-DCR and ONR grant No. N00014-83-K-0125.

Supported by NSF Grant No. 8511190-DCR and ONR grant No. N00014-83-K-0125.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. L. Aceto and U. Engberg. Failure semantics for a simple process language with refinement. Technical report, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Towards action-refinement in process algebras. In Proceedings of 4th LICS, pages 138–145. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Aceto and M. Hennessy. Adding action refinement to a finite process algebra. In Proceedings of 18 th ICALP, volume 510 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. D. Brookes and A. W. Roscoe. An improved failures model for communicating processes. In Seminar on Concurrency, volume 197 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 281–305. Springer-Verlag, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Castellano, G. De Michelis, and L. Pomello. Concurrency vs. interleaving: an instructive example. Bull. Europ. Assoc. Theoretical Computer Sci., 31:12–15, 1987.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. U. Goltz. CCS and petri nets. Technical report, GMD, July 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. C. Hennessy. Algebraic Theory of Processes. Series on Foundations of Computing. MIT Press, 1988. 272 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. C. Hennessy. Concurrent testing of processes. In Proceedings of 3rd CONCUR, 1992. Appears in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985. 256 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Jategaonkar and A. R. Meyer. Testing equivalence for Petri nets with split and choice refinements. Paper presented at the Eighth Workshop on the Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, Oxford, England, Apr. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Nielsen, U. Engberg, and K. S. Larsen. Fully abstract models for a process language with refinement. In Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, volume 354 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 523–548. Springer-Verlag, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. van Glabbeek. Comparative Concurrency Semantics and Refinement of Actions. PhD thesis, CWI, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. van Glabbeek and U. Goltz. Refinement of actions in causality based models. In Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness, volume 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 267–300. Springer-Verlag, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. van Glabbeek and F. Vaandrager. Petri net models for algebraic theories of concurrency. In Proceedings of PARLE Conference, volume 259 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 224–242. Springer-Verlag, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. W. Vogler. Failure semantics and deadlocking of modular petri nets. Acta Informatica, 26(4):333–348, 1989.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. W. Vogler. Failures semantics based on interval semiwords is a congruence for refinement. Distributed Computing, 4:139–162, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. W. Vogler. Is partial order semantics necessary for action refinement? Technical report, Technische Universitat Munchen, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, 02139, Cambridge, MA

    Lalita Jategaonkar & Albert Meyer

Authors
  1. Lalita Jategaonkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

W.R. Cleaveland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jategaonkar, L., Meyer, A. (1992). Testing equivalence for Petri Nets with action refinement: Preliminary report. In: Cleaveland, W. (eds) CONCUR '92. CONCUR 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 630. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0084780

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0084780

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-55822-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47293-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation