Hoare vs Milner: Comparing Synchronizations in a Graphical Framework With Mobility

Lanese, Ivan; Montanari, Ugo

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2005.03.032

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The formal parameters specify the agents and other servers used. Each server type contains states (3,10), services (4,11), and actions (6)(7)(13)(14). Then the server and agent variables are declared (17,18).…”

Section: Simple Imds Example: Buffermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, some formal parameters are in the form of vectors (2, 19, …). Services and state values can also be vectors (4,23). For a compact definition, repeaters precede the actions (10-17, …).…”

Section: Agent Automata A-damentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The formalism reflects the behavior of components of distributed systems: servers in a distributed environment act asynchronously and make decisions autonomously. However, many modeling and verification formalisms provide mechanisms based on simultaneous actions of processes, like synchronous transitions on common symbols in Büchi automata [2] or Timed Automata [3], synchronization on send and receive operations in CSP [4] or Uppaal Timed Automata [5], synchronous operations on complementary input and output ports in CCS [4] or Occam [6]. Several automata-based formalisms (including Büchi automata and Timed Automata) use synchronous coordination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Graphic modeling in Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3)

Daszczuk

2021

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automated verification of distributed systems becomes very important in distributed computing. The graphical insight into the system in the early and late stages of the project is essential. In the design phase, the visual input helps to articulate the collaborative distributed components clearly. The formal verification gives evidence of correctness or malfunction, but in the latter case, graphical simulation of counterexample helps for better understanding design errors. For these purposes, we invented Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3), which have the same semantics as the formal verification base—Integrated Model of Distributed Systems (IMDS). The IMDS model reflects the natural characteristics of distributed systems: unicasting, locality, autonomy, and asynchrony. Distributed automata have all of these features because they share the same semantics as IMDS. In formalism, the unified system definition has two views: the server view of the cooperating distributed nodes and the agent view of the migrating agents performing distributed computations. The automata have two formally equivalent forms that reflect two views: Server DA3 for observing servers exchanging messages, and Agent DA3 for tracking agents, which visit individual servers in their progress of distributed calculations. We present the DA3 formulation based on the IMDS formalism and their application to design and verify distributed systems in the Dedan environment. DA3 formalism is compared with other concepts of distributed automata known from the literature.

show abstract

Section: Simple Imds Example: Buffermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agent Automata A-damentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Graphic modeling in Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3)

Daszczuk

2021

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a compact definition, repeaters precede the actions in a server type (lines 10-17, ...). The indices of agents, states and services indicate individual instances (l. [26][27][28][29]. Markers E and M are shortened to mE and mM.…”

Section: Conclusion and Further Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling Distributed Systems in Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3)

Daszczuk¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Model of Distributed Systems is used for modeling and veriﬁcation. In formalism, the distributed system is modeled as a collection of server states and agent messages. The evolution of the system takes the form of actions that transform the global system conﬁguration (states and messages) into a new conﬁguration. Formalism is used in the Dedan veriﬁcation environment for ﬁnding diﬀerent kinds of deadlocks: communication deadlocks in the server view and resource deadlocks in the agent view. For other purposes, a conversion has been developed to equivalent models: to Petri nets for structural analysis and do Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3) for easy graphical modeling in terms of system components. In addition, it is possible to simulate a veriﬁed system on distributed components in DA3. The automata have two forms: Server-DA3 (S-DA3) for the server view and Agent-DA3 (A-DA3) for the agent view. DA3 formalism is compared to other concepts of distributed automata known from the literature.

show abstract

“…This model later evolved in Synchronized Hyperedge Replacement, SHR [45,46,40,36,48], where different synchronisation mechanisms are considered together with node merging and splitting.…”

Section: Ugo Montanari's Models Of Computationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of Computation: A Tribute to Ugo Montanari’s Vision

Bruni

Sassone

2008

Concurrency, Graphs and Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ugo's research activity in the area of Models of Computation (MoC, for short) has been prominent, influential and broadly scoped. Ugo's trademark is that undefinable ability to understand and distill computational aspects into new models as if you were reading them out of some evident connection between well-know models: only, most often, that connection is really visible only after Ugo shows the way. Like experienced sailors have trusted compasses and sextants to help them find the best routes to harbour, Ugo relies on a bag of favourite tools which he has used along the years to deliver a variety of contributions to the MoC area. To mention just three (in alphabetic order): algebraic techniques, concurrency theory, and unification mechanisms.In this introductory contribution we would like to recall some of the influential MoC models put forward by Ugo which cut across the three approaches. Before doing that, it is worth devoting some space to discuss the three aspects separately. Notably, the use of category theory is a pervasive common trait.Algebraic techniques. By algebraic techniques we refer broadly to the use of universal algebras and initial model semantics; of universal coalgebras and final semantics; and of bialgebras. Many interesting papers witness Ugo's leading role in exploiting algebraic techniques during his entire scientific career. Indeed, his contributions are too many to mention all in the space allocated to this overview; we shall therefore attempt to convey the sense of Ugo's broad-spectrum contribution by recapping only a few key results.Reference [43] is the first paper on final, observational semantics in abstract data types, and the main reference for one of the MoC contributed papers in this volume. It presented several key insights in software specification and development for the first time, like the separation between given sorts and newly specified ones, whereby the given sorts lay the ground to define the observable behaviour for the new sorts. Another key suggestion is that the specification of new data types is often partial -in the sense that it may include "don't care" cases-and that many realisations can exist that exhibit equivalent observable behaviour but are not isomorphic. In fact, [43] shows that the isomorphism classes of observably equivalent algebras conforming to the partial specification form a complete lattice, yielding a so-called loose semantics.Possibly the best known of Ugo's papers, [52] exposes the underlying monoidal structure of the category of Petri net computations. The title itself is revealing: Petri nets are monoids. Besides doing what it says on the tin, this paper opened a long-lasting and fruitful collaboration with José Meseguer, and a research line on the initial semantics of P. Degano et al. (Eds.): Montanari

show abstract

Hoare vs Milner: Comparing Synchronizations in a Graphical Framework With Mobility

Cited by 9 publications

References 1 publication

Graphic modeling in Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3)

Graphic modeling in Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3)

Modelling Distributed Systems in Distributed Autonomous and Asynchronous Automata (DA3)

Models of Computation: A Tribute to Ugo Montanari’s Vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About