1992
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-55613-3_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On asynchronous communication semantics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition (following e.g. [12]) we include a new input transition to capture the observations of an input in an asynchronous setting as the one we have assumed. 2 We prefer this presentation at this stage as it simplifies the definition of bisimilarity.…”
Section: Lts and Bisimilaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition (following e.g. [12]) we include a new input transition to capture the observations of an input in an asynchronous setting as the one we have assumed. 2 We prefer this presentation at this stage as it simplifies the definition of bisimilarity.…”
Section: Lts and Bisimilaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…−→ x u [11]. On the contrary, we stick to the approach in [1], where a slightly modified bisimulation (with the item 3.…”
Section: −→ Q and Inp(p ) Then Inp(q)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have adapted the well-known reduction barbed congruence used for a variety of process calculi [13,19,9], to obtain a touchstone extensional behavioural equivalence for a minor variation of the Markov automata, MAs, originally defined in [8]. Incidently there are also minor variations on the formulation of reduction barbed congruence, often called contextual equivalence or barbed congruence, in the literature.…”
Section: Theorem 4 (Completeness)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the touchstone equivalence, that is s 1 ≈ bis s 2 implies s 1 ≈ behav s 2 (ii) provides a complete proof methodology for the touchstone equivalence, that is s 1 ≈ behav s 2 implies s 1 ≈ bis s 2 . This approach originated in [13] but has now been widely used for different process description languages; for example see [14,20] for its application to higher-order process languages, [19] for mobile ambients and [9] for asynchronous languages. Moreover in each case the distinguishing criteria are more or less the same.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%