Petri nets, event structures and domains

Nielsen, Mogens; Plotkin, Gordon; Winskel, Glynn

doi:10.1007/bfb0022474

Cited by 174 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Nielsen, Plotkin and Winskel, [10], also construct an unfolding of a safe net and we observe in §2 that this does not coincide with the Muller construction. Indeed, we shall point out in §2 that not even a General Event Structure, of the type considered by Winskel in [14], is capable of generating the Muller poset.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A generalized event structure for the Muller unfolding of a safe net

Gunawardena

1993

Concur'93

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

asynchronous circuit, event structure, logics of causality, unfoldingIn 1959, Muller and Bartky published a celebrated paper on .~Theory of Asynchronous Circuits". Among many novel techniques in that paper was the use of lattices resembling the domains of configurations of event structures.In the light of this we present a generalization of Muller's construction to safe nets. We find, however, that this "Muller unfolding" cannot be generated as the domain of configurations of any known event structure, not even a General Event structure. (In particular, this unfolding differs from that of Nielsen, Plotkin and WinskeL) This paper attempts to fill that gap. We make use of the logical approach to causality, developed in previous work, in which a General Event Structure is interpreted as a logical automation arising from a particular logic of causality. We introduce a new causal logic and associate a corresponding logical automaton to any finite safe Petri net. Our main result is that the domain of configurations of this generalized event structure is isomorphic to the Muller unfolding of the net. The work described here was done as part of project STETSON, a joint project between HP Labs and Stanford University on asynchronous hardware design.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Hence, there can be no General Event Structure whose domain of configurations (or, at least, the compact elements thereof) is isomorphic to mul(N). This implies in particular that the Nielsen, Plotkin, Winskel unfolding in [10] is different from the Muller unfolding.…”

Section: B the Traces Of N Are Just The Traces Of The Corresponding mentioning

confidence: 99%

A generalized event structure for the Muller unfolding of a safe net

Gunawardena

1993

Concur'93

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the most studied noninterleaving models for concurrency is that of event structures [7,12]. Their first class objects are events, assumed to be the atomic computational steps, which are related to each other by cause/effect and conflict relationships.…”

Section: Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, in this case, the coherence axiom asks for x to be a possible computation of the system, as well. In other words, we can look at coherence as to the axiom which forces a set of events to be conflict free if it is pairwise conflict free, as in [7] for prime event structures and in [6] for proper trace languages.…”

Section: Definition 21 (Semilanguages)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterministic behavioural models for concurrency

Sassone

Nielsen

Winskel

1993

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extended AbstractThis paper offers three candidates for a deterministic, noninterleaving, behaviour model which generalizes Hoare traces to the noninterleaving situation. The three models are all proved equivalent in the rather strong sense of being equivalent as categories. The models are: deterministic labelled event structures, generalized trace languages in which the independence relation is context-dependent, and deterministic languages of pomsets.

show abstract

“…In noninterleaving models as [3,4,8,10,11,12,18,21,23] an attempt is made to capture ' true parallelism ' where as interleaving models as [1,2,5,6,7,19] In this paper we compare an interleaving semantics offull TCSP based on a transition system with a noninterleaving model based on labelIed event structures [16,22,23,24] . In an earlier paper [11]have shown for finite TCSP processes without recursion and div that the interleaving transition system based description and the respective event structure semantics are consistent .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%